/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.117729]

If you could bring one /biz/messman back from the dead, who would it be?

I'd bring back Carl Marx because he was right about almost everything

[Anonymous No.117820]

>>117729
i realize this is bait, but he did have quite interesting beliefs, ones that while i'm not a communist, i agree with

>feudal system was evil
>capitalism is less evil but still evil
>eventually we will reach something not evil

he would be a transhumanist today, supporting the singularity

[Anonymous No.117832]

>>117820
Not that we have it right, but capitalism is evolution in action. It's not evil

[Anonymous No.117843]

>>117832
poor phrasing on my part

[Anonymous No.117852]

Keynes. The man has been subject to so much misinterpretation since he wrote the GT, it would be amazing to see what he has to say about the current global macroeconomic climate.

[Anonymous No.117856]

>>117832

I think the Churchill quote works for capitalism.
"Capitalism is the worst form of an economy, except for all those others that have been tried before."

Let's think on what Capitalism does right: It incentivizes work and technological advancement. It breeds out inefficiencies in the system.

What does it do wrong? It ignores the plight of worker without protections in place. It concentrates wealth. If combined with a less meritocratic system(which ours is becoming more and more), it tends toward plutocratic nepotism.

So what does communism do right? It distributes the gains of society. Unfortunately, it's shit for progress, and just as bad on power concentration if not way fucking worse.

But let's think on this. Communist phones or automobiles would be the ultimate in shit. No advancement ever.

But why can't we pull in some compassion into capitalism? We're filthy fucking rich. What if we provided basic sustenance and housing $$'s to everyone? We get a structural support at the very bottom for our capitalist system, which inevitably produces losers, some due to circumstances beyond their own control, and we still have the positives of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.117940]

>>117856
You just described socialism.

[Anonymous No.117999]

>>117856
Rewarding something for nothing is anti evolutionary
Oligopoly is anti evolutionary

We simply need a government that heavily enforces equal opportunity
Equal opportunity, but not equality

[Anonymous No.118056]

>>117940
Europe Ho!

[Anonymous No.118063]

>>117999
Yeah, but in evolution those who don't manage to get it done just die out. In human society whose who don't manage to get it done don't say "Yeah i guess I failed at social darwinism, let's lay down and die", they grab a gat and rob the corner store for cash, or take drugs to make the pain go away, or become religious crazies so their world makes sense again.

There's few things that can drive man to madness as easily as pressure. You need to have some compassion in your world if you want it to work properly, even if a handful of leeches will inevitaby abuse it.

[Anonymous No.118105]

how long until /pol/ shits up this board?

[Anonymous No.118104]

>>118063
Nah. They either go to the designated poor houses, start working and stop spending money on Iphones and Gucci before they dont need to worry about eating, or they can starve and die.
If they rob some people, well, the Second Amendment is there.
Compassion? The poor houses, the Hitler like working programs ( hurr durr you racist), private charities are there.
Not him btw.

[Anonymous No.118109]

>>118104
>beating down the symptoms instead of treating the actual sickness
And this is how you have South Central and the Bronx, good job America, it sure works great.

[Anonymous No.118119]

>>118105
Im so sorry that you are too retarded to understand that politics and economics have been hand-in-hand since people store rice in the first banks.

>>118109
The sickness is that those "poor" people are fixated on buying Iphones and frivolous bullshits when their incomes havent allowed those yet.
Then ran out of cash then look up wall street blaming, while its their damn faults.

[Anonymous No.118146]

>>118119
>The sickness is that those "poor" people are fixated on buying Iphones and frivolous bullshits when their incomes havent allowed those yet.
I can tell you're /pol/ and also to 100% have never been poor in your life. Try not to let your poor judgement and prejudice get in the way of rational discussion.

The OP is Marx, maybe that tells you something? Back in the 19th century, do you think there were smartphones to buy? Try to think outside of your box of retardation for a second, not everything is niggers niggers niggers niggers.

[Anonymous No.118179]

>>117729
>Carl Marx
It's Karl Marx you philistine.

[Anonymous No.118191]

>>118146
>Didnt even mention races
>NIGGGER NIGGER NIGGER
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAH
You can fuck off to leddit.
Back then =/= today.
Even back in the day of our favorite dead beat bum, his shitty ideology was proven wrong, thats why it failed.

>I can tell you are /pol/
So? Are you going to call me stormfag now?
>Have never been poor?
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Im now 19 and have no real laptop of my own, and my Iphone is Iphone4, passed on after 2 years of hard use from my older brother.
Im also still studying so Im jobless.
Yet I have money to go out with friend through saving for 2-3 times each month through my saving. And Im not jealous of anyone.
Maybe you should get back to /leddit/.
Since you are the one bringing race into this, fuck off kike :)).

[Anonymous No.118205]

>>118191
>Back then =/= today.
Nope, the fundamentals are the exact same, just the makeup on the surface is different.
And you don't need to mention race when your entire post seeps it like the American you are seeps lard out of every orifice. Protip: nigger doesn't refer to skin color.

[Anonymous No.118233]

>>118205
>"nigger doesn't refer to skin color"
>Obviously tried to bring race into the debate like a leddit subhuman faggot
>HURR DURR I WAS USING 4CHAN'S DEFINITION
Lol try harder.

>Implying Im American
>Still trying to pin racist, even though you brought it out first
>>>/leddit/

>Fundementals are the exact same
>Claimed that they had not envisioned smartphones in just one post before
>>>/leddit/
You wont establish a present here anyway. This board is going to be /k/ and /pol/ dominated.

[Anonymous No.118292]

>>118233
>this cultural marxism
No, it won't, not as long as there's people making quality posts here. And if you seriously blame everyone who has an opinion differing from yours on leddit then you clearly have been here since about two days ago.

>/k/ and /pol/
>rednecks and the trolls that got bored of /b/
I hope not.

[Anonymous No.118294]

>>118205
>fundamentals are the exact same
Nope

Also, the only one who brought race into it is you. Why are you such an insecure nigger?

[Anonymous No.118306]

>>118294
>race
>immediately imply that everyone poor cannot amnage money and chimps out on iphones and other thigns they can't affort
the intent was clear, /pol/ack.

[Anonymous No.118315]

>>118306
Ironically, this says more about you and your biases than anything. Why did you see race in such a statement?

[Anonymous No.118323]

>>118315
Because it's all /pol/ talks about so I went ahead and skipped the middle man. Where I live there's like one nigger for every hundred thousand people so it's not like I care.

[Anonymous No.118331]

>>118323
Oh ok then, thanks for conceding you have nothing better to contribute than
>/POL/!!111

[Anonymous No.118361]

>>118331
I already made my point above. Man-eat-man capitalism and blaming those who don't survive in it for their own misfortune is not the solution to the American societies' problems. You're getting fucked every which way by the big corps and all I see complaints about is Tyrone and Jaqueline at the bus stop.

Forgot the kids for cash scandal already? That's how far it's come, literally selling your freedoms for moolah. That wasn't niggers doing that by the way, that was one hell of a nicely structured big orp sceme and there's thousands more that drain the economy of more cash and power than a billion extra poor would drain it of.

[Anonymous No.118385]

>>118361
I actually can't blame people for wanting to capitalize on the stupidity and crimes of niggers.

Those kids would have gone through the system even if a judge wasn't getting a kickback based on what PARTICULAR program he sent them to.

[Anonymous No.118396]

>>118385
Yeah goy, nothing is wrong with the society the way it is right now, everyone is happy, everyone who isn't deserves their lot in life, slit your mother's neck for my amusement why don't you, compassion is for the weak and I'll pay you handsomely after all!

[Anonymous No.118403]

>>117820
>healthy people are alive
>dying people are less alive but still alive
>eventually we will all die

advancement is not always positive

[Anonymous No.118407]

>>118396
Other people's happiness is not my responsibility.

>also, way to send the goal posts to another dimension

[Anonymous No.118421]

>>118407
>Other people's happiness is not my responsibility.
Lets disband the army then, it's not their job to die for you.
Oh no wait it fucking is, this is a nation you dimwit, it means being in a boat together, if everyone only looks after their own ass the ship sinks and everyone in it dies. Welcome to the real world, where ounumbering the other guy is a valid tactic and Ayn Rand can go suck a fat one.

And moving the goalposts isn't my job when you've already set them on the moon through your ideology itself.

[Anonymous No.118429]

>>118421
>this entire post

[Anonymous No.118434]

>>118429
I see you're out of arguments, I'm not out of arguments myself.

[Anonymous No.118441]

>>118434
>I'm not out of arguments myself.

Great! Can't wait to hear more first-year sociology pleb diatribe.

[Anonymous No.118445]

>>118441
I'm waiting for you to argue anything first, go on, try it.

[Anonymous No.118536]

>>118292
>quality post
>You
The irony.
>Defending leddit
>On 4chan
>>>/oven/

[Anonymous No.118567]

>>118536
I'm not defending leddit, I'm defending people's freedom to hold whatever opinion they like to even if they disagree with mine. I don't tell them to fuck off like you like to. WHat do you think about nazis going to jail in Germany for their political ideology? That's the thing you are doing.

[Anonymous No.118603]

>>118567
Nah, you are a leddit piece of shit. Its leaking all over all of your posts, the attempt to drag race into the arguments, the love for the subhuman Karl Marx, and the fact that you are defending leddit.
Your shithole stinks so much you fuckers flock here like Californian fleeing to the Mid West. Fucking scum. Go clean up your own damn mess.

[Anonymous No.118609]

>>118603
>tell the other guy he's lying
See, your argumentation falls apart all on it's own, i don't even have to do anything.

[Anonymous No.118629]

>>118609
Yeah, until you realize you are just revealing your true place of origin.
Also, this thread was political from the start, yet you shoot /pol/. Not to mention the very first example of "nigger" in this thread is by you.
>>>/leddit/
>>>/MSNBC/

[Anonymous No.118640]

>>118629
How about... no. What are you going to do about it? 4chan is a free place of discussion, i can hold any opinion I want here. You're acting against that, I'd say you should go back to your favourite subreddit and push your echo chamber agenda there.

[Anonymous No.118662]

>>118640
Nobody like your leddit kind around here. You will find that out soon enough. As I have said, /pol/ and /k/ will dominate this board.
/pol/ because its the very nature of modern economy.
/k/ because guns are expensive, and adults make money, also they tend to be /pol/ as in Libertarians.
But go a head, before they drive you back to /co/, /lit/ and /out/.

[Anonymous No.118664]

>>118662
fucking this

[Anonymous No.118676]

>>118662
>/pol/ because its the very nature of modern economy.
>/k/ because guns are expensive, and adults make money, also they tend to be /pol/ as in Libertarians.
Top laff, top laff. If you want a place full of likeminded dumbshits who parrot whatever is the norm then keep at being /pol/ wherever you go. This is /biz/, so it's about discussion. You know, that thing that you maybe have seen adults do, exchange of ideas without flinging shit at each other? Maybe one day you'll be able to appreciate that, because that's what 4chan has been built to do. If you want to hear the same opinion over and over again, record yourself and put that on your mp3 player and listen to it all day long. Don't ask for a board full of people to play the peanut gallery for you.

[Anonymous No.118690]

>>118676
Just go ahead. See how long the your situation is the same as Obama loving pieces of shit on /k/.
This board very nature will also guarantee disdain toward communism or any form of Karl Marx's dead beat bullshit.
I dont have to do anything. They will reject you themselves.

[Anonymous No.118710]

>>118690
Yeah really? I don't think so. I still don't understand why you're against people with differing opinions in the first place. As I've said, go to a printsho and get "MY OPINION" printed out in size 72 and bright read over fifty pages long and hang it into your room, I'm sure that will make you happy.

Why should there be a board for business and finance discussion if only ope opinion is allowed there? May as well just make it a splash screen reading "libertarianism is right" and nothing else. Explain to me the purpose of such a forum, because you can get self-fellatio by getting one of your ribs surgically removed.

[Anonymous No.118706]

>>118676
>doesn't like capitalism
>wants to be accepted on a board called /biz/

your stupidity is astounding

HEY GUYS, DAE HATE CORPORATIONS?

[Anonymous No.118718]

>>118710
>>118676

>Le reaction images
>2014
Goddamn, leddits retards are truly scum.

[Anonymous No.118723]

>>118706
There's as many different flavors of finance and business as there's people in the world. I like the European way better, argue with me about it.

>>118718
>le no arguments once again
>any year after 2004
Goddamn, /pol/ retards are truly scum.

[Anonymous No.118737]

>>118710
>HURR DURR MUH 1st AMENDMENT
>Leddit faggots downvoting people at the same time

>>118723
>OMG PEOPLE HATE ME
>ITS MUST BE JUST ONE POLTARD
You mad? You do realize people hate leddit subhumans on 4chan right?
People? As in many human beings?

[Anonymous No.118755]

>>118737
What your personal opinion on a site I don't visit is does not matter to me, along with any conjectural arguments you try to drag in about that.

moot once said that he made 4chan so people would not be judged by any sort off ame they have acumulated on their identity or anything associated about them but only to be judged by the merits of what they say and argue. It's really fucking ironic to see someone want to "defend" 4chan in a manner that is so utterly against the very foundation of the site.

[Anonymous No.118759]

>>118723
>I like the European way better, argue with me about it.

The European way? 20% unemployment?
You're right, all hail government.

[Anonymous No.118766]

>>118662
>/pol/ because its the very nature of modern economy.

Oh lordy. /pol/ is literally retarded when it comes to understanding modern economics.

[Anonymous No.118767]

>>118759
>20%
https://www.google.de/search?q=deutschand+arbeitslodenquote&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=KwYKU52sA-mH8QeI2oD4Cg#channel=sb&q=deutschland+arbeitslosenquote&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&spell=1
Blue is Germany, Green is Britian, Orange is France. U wot?

[Anonymous No.118775]

>>118755
So? Moot is a faggot sellout. His retarded dream didnt come true anyway. Something about nature and the fact that he allows tripcodes.

>>118766
Indeed. But economy is inevitably political.

[Anonymous No.118802]

>>118775
>Moot is a faggot sellout.
Now you've reached the point where it's actually valid to tell you to fuck off. if you disagree with the very foundation of the site THEN you should go to /r/libertarianismftw or /r/whitepower and stay there. Your echo chamber is not here and trying to shill that sort of thinking is not welcome either, it's the cancer killing 4chan.

And tripcodes exist for a purpose I'm certain you've never made use of them for: to be able to recognize organizers of something or people who are in that very thread or board important because of the work they do and the pupose they serve. Such as amDOGE in this board, Hox back on /a/ when he did translation, Daiz on /a/ noawadays when it's about fansubbing and so on. If you don't even read the rules outlining all of this then you truly have no place on this site.

[Anonymous No.118824]

>>118802
Oh yes, then state that you are from leddit and try to push Marxism on this site then.
>MUH FOUNDATION
What is he going to do? /pol/ is going to spread all over 4chan. Two of his attempts at squashing /pol/ before it was /pol/ ended up making it more popular than ever. Yes he did, he tried to pander to leddit retards like you and he failed.
So you see, you can squeel like a stuck pig in this thread, but the reality is that YOU are not welcomed here.

[Anonymous No.118860]

>>118824
Not true, he reinstated /pol/ because he noticed he had acted against that belief of free discussion. He did it so people can discuss things freely, like it is supposed to be, not so it's an echo chamber for retards with their head stuck in a bucket like you are.

Freedom of speech means suffering the odd mongolod like you, and moot is clearly willing to see that through. If he wanted to, /pol/ would be gone by tomorrow and you'd be out of a place to circlejerk in. He does not, however, because he believes in freedom of speech (unlike you, who only wants to hear his own opinion parroted over and over again).

Inb4 "we'd shitpost everwhere until we get it bacckk!!1!!11!1!!!", that's surely a great argument and totally helped for /g/ and /l/ and /fur/, too.

[Anonymous No.118879]

>>118860
>If he wanted to
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He can go right ahead and sees them spilling all over the place like the last time.
Lets face this, you are a leddit retard. You will never be accepted. It might not be me the next time, but there will be someone.
4chan is not for leddit subhumans.

[Anonymous No.118902]

>>118879
Where does it read that? Show me the place where it reads that in the rules please.
Oh wait, let me check...
https://www.4chan.org/rules
>3. Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies [...] Keep /pol/ in /pol/. In essence: Don't shitpost.
Wow, that's unexpected! Who'd have thought that, really.

[Anonymous No.118914]

>>118902
>Keep /pol/ in /pol/
>Implying that shitty rule is being followed
Confirmed for leddit subhuman. Enjoy your first few weeks?
>Muh rules
Thats why they cant post tits and comics on /k/.
Oh wait...

[Anonymous No.118923]

>>118902
>don't troll outside of /b/
>implying that this board and every other board isn't trolls trolling trolls 24/7
you wot m00t

[Anonymous No.118921]

>>118191
>Im now 19
Oh you have so much to learn.
Also, calling someone a kike and telling them to back to raddit. You must be the coolest guy on earth

[Anonymous No.118932]

>>118921
But yet Im neither a leddit retard pushing Marxism, nor Im jealous of rich people. I think Im pretty ok.

[Anonymous No.118936]

>>118914
If you don't want to follow the rules then why the hell would you go to a site? Just look for a place that's more your cup of tea and stop shitting this one up with your retardation.

[Anonymous No.118947]

>>118936
>muh rules
More proof that this is a leddit immigrant.

[Anonymous No.118952]

>>118947
refer to>>118755
>What your personal opinion on a site I don't visit is does not matter to me, along with any conjectural arguments you try to drag in about that.
No arguments means you don't matter for shit, that's a sad fact.

[Anonymous No.118961]

>>118952
>Trying to race bait at the beginning
>Shouting /pol/ in a political thread
>Screaming about muh rules
Yeah, totally not from leddit.

[Anonymous No.118977]

>>118961
Rules are there to be followed. iIf you don't, sign up to tumblr, make a blog full of edgy talk about how you fuck the system and pretend you're above the human condition. Maybe you'll make some friends that way.

[Anonymous No.118983]

>>118977
>Muh rules
>B-b-but free speech
>on 4chan
Only a leddit browsing, Karl Marx loving piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.118995]

>>118983
Do you even look at what you are posting?

[Anonymous No.119012]

>>118995
I did. I summed up what you are.
A leddit subhuman screaming for free speech but the first moment under attack run back to the forum rules, thinking somebody will downvote those mean /pol/tards and ban them.

[Anonymous No.119017]

>>119012
Unable to think or unable to read, I'm not sure which description fits you better. Either way, it's not worth the effort anymore. See you in the next thread where you spread your bullshit, I'll be happy to kill that one too.

[Anonymous No.119023]

>>118767
And Spain and Italy and Portugal?

[Anonymous No.119028]

>>119017
A leddit shitposting slider admitting the fact.
Finally.

[Anonymous No.119038]

is "reddit" the new "jew" or is it just one retard spouting this retarded nonsense?

[Anonymous No.119050]

>>119038
How long have you been on 4chan?
Screaming for free speech while resorting to muh forum rules at the same time is the leddit poster most prolific trait.

[Anonymous No.119065]

>>119038
Fucker tried to race bait at the start of the thread. I will suck start a shotgun if that fucker isnt from reddit or some form of troll.

[Anonymous No.120237]

>All these deleted posts

[samefag No.120298]

>>120237
wrong gif but whatever

[Anonymous No.120434]

>>118063

There is a difference between being compassionate and being a fucking naive fool.

Individuals can be compassionate and you can have compassion in a capitalist society, however you can't force compassion through law, such things don't work like that.

[Anonymous No.120482]

The Truth About Karl Marx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg

[Anonymous No.120513]

>>120482
Oh god

[Anonymous No.121646]

>>120482

>Marx had a theory and then tried to find a proof... that is the opposite of science, that is religious...

If we are going with Karl Popper's science as falsification principle, that's bullshit. What science is involves finding empirical proofs for or against risky falsifiable theories and testing them to see if they hold up (though this has been debated).

Even Popper himself notes that Marx was scientific in his methods. However, he was falsified on a number of his theories (for example, workers never revolted in England).

Marx was a lazy cunt though. Though that was because he thought the workers revolution was inevitable.

I don't know how he interpreted Marx as a moralist anyway (though in truth, I haven't read all his books. Only Capital volume 1 and though Marx did right about many injustices, he only documented them and did not as far as I am aware, critique them).

Anyway, it's not like he was the only young Hegelian to be bad with money. Take glorious St. Max for example and the cooperative experiment.

[Anonymous No.121881]

>>120482
>peter molyneaux

[Anonymous No.121912]

>>121881
oops I mean Stefan lyl

[Anonymous No.122562]

>>117999
>Rewarding something for nothing is anti evolutionary
Hur dur. Evolution is not some kind of god that we need to worship

We're going to evolve no matter what. Instituting murderous policies in the name of evolution isn't going to advance society at all. Look at Africa: plenty of murder and "evolution" to go around there- the most violent, miserable places have the highest birth rates.

As well, we evolved as hunter-gatherers. Our very nature is to reap what we didn't sow. To gang up, and support each other, while searching for the Earth's bounty. "Anti evolution..." fuck you.

[Anonymous No.122570]

>>117729

0/10

[Anonymous No.122608]

>>117729

I'd bring back Hitler because he was right about almost everything.

[Anonymous No.122619]

>>120237
Seconding this. Mods = gods? Or something else?

[Anonymous No.122812]

>>117729
Hjalmar Schacht
Without him Germany never would have been able rebuild a savings for national betterment. Unfortunately they misappropriated it to launch WWII, but that show how effective it was because without it WWII would have been over in a week or two.


I still would love to talk with Karl Marx as most of his work is surprisingly correct expect for one critical detail. He neglected the scaling of systems many of his modals deal with scales around a village and towns level not the international level which is was applied. Also like just about everyone else he underestimated technologies advancement.

[Anonymous No.126488]

>>117820
CAPITALISM mean normal human interactions. That fucking piece of shit in op's picture successfully turned almost an entire generation of idiots into dangerous idiots. If owning property is theft than i must be stealing the use of this keyboard or this hand or this mind. Karl Marx was one of this biggest cocksuckers of all time and will probably go down in history as the worst person ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg

If you think Karl Marx was a man of the people? I think you will change your mind after watching the video.

[Anonymous No.126496]

>>117856
so you must be like 4 years old right? Nobody is stupid enough to think that the right system of theft will solve the worlds crime problem.

[Anonymous No.126499]

>>126488
According to Marx that keyboard hand and mind are all personal property, which are perfectly fine.

What isn't allowed is the ownership of private property, which would be any basic means of production (typical example is raw materials for mass manufacturing vs. the item manufactured)

[Anonymous No.126513]

>>126488
What is "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque"?

http://youtu.be/BURI0PBUtsU

[Anonymous No.126534]

>>126499
so my body is not a means of production? I cant produce things with it?

Don't fucking talk down to me like i don't know what marks wanted. Watch the fucking video maybe you will fucking learn something.

So if i cant own the "means of production" How will we determine what the best use of the materials will be? If i don't know how much something costs how would i be able to stock pile anything?(as i would need to know how much is needed and how much needs to be produced)

If you acknowledge that it is a ridiculous notion to try to devise a system without money than what you are talking about is socialism.

[Anonymous No.126543]

>>126513
Wow didn't even watch the video. He fucking explains that fallacy within 2 minutes of the video. Not to mention that You fuckers use ad home all the time in attacking free trade but as soon as the rules for debate favor your point you jump on them.

COMMIES ARGUE LIKE CHILDREN>

[Anonymous No.126550]

>>126543
>He explains the fallacy while making the fallacy, therefor it is not a fallacy.
Beyond that, his argument still fails for the reasons illustrated.

[Anonymous No.126557]

>>126543
Also note: I never made any claim against free trade, nor anything else except providing evidence that Molyneux couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

Nice ad hominems though. I see you learned well from your brilliant leader.

[Anonymous No.126575]

>>126557
>>126550
you guys are really pathetic you know that right? You claim i am the one ad homing while you ad home me? then you claim a persons views are incorrect because of a fallacy THAT IS EXPLAINED IN THE FIRST 45 SECOND OF THE VIDEO!

I fucking understand what ad hom is and i know that you do too. You don't use it in the way most people do to root out miss truths you use it to shield yourself from truth.

You fucking pieces of shit have basically made the world the way is is over the last 100 years. Yet you claim the moral high ground and claim you are looking out for the best interests of the people when in reality your just a bunch of fucking thieves who have figured out a cleaver way of stealing on a national scale.

Heres a good series you should watch if you claim to be working for the best interests of the people. You are intrested in making the average person life better right? Not just stuffing your own pockets?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

god forbid you fucking learn something!

[Anonymous No.126590]

>>126575
I never made an ad hominem at you. I merely insulted you when you didn't have an argument, after you insulted me. I also only did so within pointing out why you are an idiot (Not an ad hominem).

When you are spewing insults, and your own argument, defending his ad hominem tu quoque, is an ad hominem tu quoque... I really can't take you seriously.

You've still failed to make an argument against any of the arguments in that video, which point out why Molyneux's argument fails, instead you've resorted to ad hominem. Again, please note that at no point did I claim anything relating to communism nor agreeing with Marx. Remember because Molyneux is wrong, and I call him out for it, doesn't mean I believe Marx is right.

[Anonymous No.126588]

>>122608
bringing back the ultimate /biz/iness man

[Anonymous No.126623]

>>126590
The video is not a rejection of marks theories but a analysis of the person. You don't need to refute mark's theories because history and logic does a good enough job of that already.

I'm glad you are not a communist but i am curious why do you not like Stefan? Have you found him to be incorrect in his information? Has he made arguments that are illogical?

I want to understand why YOU believe him to be incorrect.

[Anonymous No.126661]

>>126590
yeah i didn't fucking think so you fucking coward!

[Anonymous No.126663]

>>126623
And that fails as an argument against anything Marx said or a reason that his theories are not valid for the reasons detailed in that video.

>Have you found him to be incorrect in his information?
Yes, frequently.
http://youtu.be/K3T-SMoqc_M

>Has he made arguments that are illogical?
Yes, frequently. For instance, the entire "fat diet book" premise in that video that you linked falls flat on it's face.

Why I believe him to be incorrect? Because he factually his, and his arguments fail left and right. He introduces new principals when he cannot defend his ideas logically (6 Reasons Libertarians should reject the NAP) video. He cannot stick to his own beliefs when they have negative consequences. He does not understand half the arguments he's making. He appeals to arguments very similar to social contract arguments in an attempt to refute pollution breaching NAP (ergo his argument could easily be applied to taxation). His UPB book is just a disgusting fiction that fails on it's face. He is actually damaging to the people who listen to him.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/15/family-relationships-fdr-defoo-cult

I can provide citations to the rest as well.

[Anonymous No.126674]

>>126661
It takes awhile when Molyneux says as much stupid shit as he does. I apologize. If he was more often correct or logical it would have taken less time.

[Anonymous No.126713]

>>126663
Some side things related started with his failings and some of the things he was arguing against. As well as serving as citations for my above claims, and the thoughts of a few others regarding the NAP specifically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB_wenB6yBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_zwgP2z9lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGHvm7odNY

http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle
http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/non-agression-principle-cant-be-salvaged-isnt-even-principle
http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/

[Anonymous No.126754]

>>126663
>>Have you found him to be incorrect in his information?
Yes, frequently.
http://youtu.be/K3T-SMoqc_M [Remove]

I asked YOU not Philosophy lines YOU. I want to hear YOUR REJECTIONS to his POINTS. Not just ad hom, which we know you hate. If you take your philosophy seriously then you should be able to define your principles rather easily i know i can. I don't need to link to videos one other guy has made to represent my views. I don't subsist vicariously off of others opinions i formulate my own. So tell me if the NAP and UPB are such flawed principles to follow what principles do YOU follow.

Please don't link me to another video just fucking define your principles.

You can show me everyones work but you know its just a way of trying to get me to go away and stop getting you to question yourself right?

[Anonymous No.126760]

>>126713
I also love how this philosophy lines guy constantly criticizes the only person/reason anyone pays any attention to his work. It's an enigma!

[Anonymous No.126780]

>>126754
>Not just ad hom, which we know you hate.
Those are not ad homs. I used the videos as concise ways to present my arguments, which would be the same as the videos.

>what principles do YOU follow.
This is entirely pointless to the argument.

>You can show me everyones work but you know its just a way of trying to get me to go away and stop getting you to question yourself right?
I'm referencing other people's work merely as a faster method of argument. There is no need for me to type up what has already been typed, or speak what has already been spoken, when I can just have you read or listen to that person, especially when it will take the same amount of time for you. If I agree with their point, and it is faster for both parties involved, there is no reason not to do it.

[Anonymous No.126784]

>>126754
As an aside, by the logic you presented, Molyneux's video against Marx and the other video you linked are pointless to the discussion. You haven't made your own argument at all then.

We're done here.

[Anonymous No.126815]

>>117729

id bring back marx just to see the look on his fucking face when he goes to china

[PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs No.126818]

>>122608
>>126588

Fuck year.

>>126623

>I'm glad you are not a communist but i am curious why do you not like Stefan?

Do you even need a reason? Do you not realize how grating and tone-deaf he is? He manages to be a cult leader despite having the charisma of a hypochondriac spinster patronizing Curves, which is really quite impressive. Even when I was an ancap I still thought he was unpleasant and creepy.

[Anonymous No.126825]

>>126780
>Those are not ad homs. I used the videos as concise ways to present my arguments, which would be the same as the videos.

Your selective logic is astounding! You have argued on /pol/ before right? I know I have argued with you before you do the same thing every time. Its like you think you can post videos and arguments in order to distract from the point. You must be trying to run out the clock on reply counts for the thread.

>This is entirely pointless to the argument.

So we are talking about philosophers and weather they are correct but your own personal philosophy in now way effects your judgment? Moral relativist much?

>I'm referencing other people's work merely as a faster method of deferring critical analysis of my arguments. There is no need for me to think up what has already been thought, or analyze what has already been presented, when I can just have you read or listen to the opinions of others, especially when it will make me define my opinions. If I agree with someone else, and it is faster for both parties involved, there is no reason to prove that I have put though into the subject.

Fixed that for yah

[Anonymous No.126828]

I have an idea, let's actually discuss the point of conflict and cite things instead of dismissing everything as a fallacy then shouting ad homs back and forth.
Seriously you guys while the idea of fallacy were made to help defend the people from deception and build better arguments, if you look hard enough every thing is a fallacy in some form. So at some point listening and thinking become a requirement.

[Anonymous No.126847]

>>126784
ok man you can stomp away if you want you are only fooling yourself.

My argument is that communism is completely incorrect and i did not link to the video to prove that. I linked to the video to describe the character of the person behind communism.

You seem to be getting flustered its ok it was hard for me to accept that communism is bullshit too.

[Anonymous No.126866]

>>126818

>Do you even need a reason? Do you not realize how grating and tone-deaf he is? He manages to be a cult leader despite having the charisma of a hypochondriac spinster patronizing Curves, which is really quite impressive. Even when I was an ancap I still thought he was unpleasant and creepy.

EVERY FUCKING TIME!

The ONLY rejection of Stefan is ad hom. Its amazing how people claim moral superiority and consistency while such a blaring inconsistency is obviously apparent in the opinion. You guys crack me up How does your mind work? You must be going in circles of justification in your head. What medication do you take for that?

[Anonymous No.126880]

>>126825
>Your selective logic is astounding!
They aren't ad homs.

>So we are talking about philosophers and weather they are correct but your own personal philosophy in now way effects your judgment?
Refuting Stephan, using his own logic and terms, does not require me or anyone else to state their own principals. For instance, even if we agreed, I could still refute his terms. It's a pointless red herring.

>Fixed that for yah
Critize the points made and I'll argue with you on them. I agree with the videos, so saving myself time by referencing them makes logical sense. It also saves you time, as you could watch them instead of waiting for me to type all of that up.

>>126847
Your argument was "CAPITALISM mean normal human interactions." >>126488 That's not what Capitalism means (See: The definition of the word Capitalism). The rest is just an attack on Marx's in character, so I went for the bulk of your post and referenced specifically the video in the rebuttal.

I linked videos, much like yours, which point out Stephan's flawed logic and factual failures. These are not, unlike Stephan's video, ad hominems. They serve as more concise presentations of my argument.

[Anonymous No.126882]

>>126828
this is the game man commies know they are wrong but they are expert sophists! The strategy is to change the subject and bury in references until they opposing party gives up or snaps showing weakness that they immediately jump on. Watch someone will reference this post claiming that i am using these tactics. watch.

[PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs No.126885]

>>126866

You asked why someone wouldn't like him, and I told you why I don't like him.

>Its amazing how people claim moral superiority and consistency

Yes, I suppose there are some people somewhere out there who do that, though I don't see what that has to do with us.

[Anonymous No.126893]

>>126847
But you can have a person make a very good diet book and still be fat. Judging the creators character is not always a good representation, Benjamin Franklin for one example.

Also communism does work very well, but not at the larger scales like to which it was applied. Remember just about every system works under the right conditions.

[Anonymous No.126911]

>>126828
Honestly, I think I've given him a fair shot at my argument. Granted, I have used videos as they would, under normal circumstances, save us a great deal of time. They cite both Stephan and present an argument against him that I agree with. I've cited other people to back up my NAP point as well in my earlier list.

Honestly, this was just seemed more efficient.

[Anonymous No.126951]

>>126911
I agree videos can be a time saver, I myself hit the character cap on this board far too often. But the problem is that if one part of the video is wrong or doesn't perfectly match your views many dismiss the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.126954]

>>126880
>Refuting Stephan, using his own logic and terms, does not require me or anyone else to state their own principals

so you just want to criticize then?I asked you to state your own principles as a way of you contributing something to conversation. A way of proving that you are not just a complainer but actually want to help by disproving incorrect theories that steer people off course. If you just want to criticize then WHY THE FUCK DID YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH STEFAN DOING IT!

>Your argument was "CAPITALISM mean normal human interactions." >>126488 (You) That's not what Capitalism means (See: The definition of the word Capitalism)

oh you are so clever! I don't know what capitalism mean! Its not like the word was created by a psychopath in order to justify institutionalized slavery. No

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism))

That definition is in no way using the language described by Marx in Das Kapital. Free trade is the exact same as capitalism but when you turn free trade into capitalism it sounds like an artificial concept, something that has be devised or planed. Capitalism is free trade and free trade is as natural and human as breathing or eating. It is essential and we would and could not survive without it.

So finally what fucking grand theory of behavior do you preach and follow please enlighten us instead of just fucking whining.

[Anonymous No.126988]

>>126951
A fair point.

>>126954
>so you just want to criticize then?
Yeah, I wish to refute his incorrect and bad arguments. I'm not criticizing him as a person, I am criticizing his failed arguments. If you wanted me to critique him as a person that's a waste of time and would take many, many posts.

>oh you are so clever!
It's not really cleverness. That isn't what the word means, that's all that I said. I also gave you the more fair definition that Merriam-Webster uses when reading that. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism).). That's why I ran to the bulk of your post instead as what I should reference.

>So finally what fucking grand theory of behavior do you preach and follow please enlighten us instead of just fucking whining.
I don't preach anything. This had nothing to do with the discussion to begin with. My problems with Stefan have absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs, and everything to do with his bad arguments.

[Anonymous No.127001]

>>126893
>But you can have a person make a very good diet book and still be fat

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! You don't need to explain that just because a person is a particular way doesn't mean they can not speak truth I fucking get it. You can never have taken a math class and still understand that 2 plus 2 equals 4 i fucking get it!

But when you are claiming to have the solution to the problems of humanity and a better way of living life i will acknowledge that this is not just a fucking diet you are talking about. If a diet doesn't work well you gain the weight back if communism doesn't work HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE!

Do you see how it may be a little important for someone who preaches about how to live your life to live life to your satisfaction? Can you see the benefit in being able to judge someones credentials before accepting their statements as truth?

If so than you understand how the original video i posted IS NOT JUST AD HOM!

Fucking hell i though this was the business board where the fuck are my free market brothers? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

[Anonymous No.127042]

>>127001
>If so than you understand how the original video i posted IS NOT JUST AD HOM!
It is an Ad Hom. It is not a discussion of Marx's theories, it is a discussion of Marx's character. He does not have to live by his theories for his theories to have merit, they should be judged separately from him.

An amoralist could write a book on a great moral theory, and not give a fuck about it himself.

>Can you see the benefit in being able to judge someones credentials before accepting their statements as truth?
There isn't one. You cannot judge a person's theories without knowing them, and to know them you can't have already judged the person as incorrect by the way they live their lives in the here and now. Just because they live one way that may be contrary to what they are preaching, that does not make what they are preaching wrong.

I sort of repeated myself there, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.127051]

>>127042
>You cannot judge a person's theories without knowing their theories
Woops may that a bit confusing.

[Anonymous No.127061]

>>126988
>My problems with Stefan have absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs, and everything to do with his bad arguments.

Bullshit. You have yet to define any bad arguments. All the arguments presented in those videos and articles can and have been refuted but you KNOW i don't have the time to refute them here so you will stand by the fact that you have videos and i don't. You are the worst kind of sophist.

I can also tell the demeanor of your posts has shifted to the pussy conservative answers. Not letting any bit of emotion or fervor slip into the dialog isolating yourself from the claim of anger while simultaneously trying to make your opponent look inconsistent and emotional. You guys crack me up i just hope you use these skills you have to make money.

[Anonymous No.127080]

>>127061
>you KNOW i don't have the time to refute them here
You've spent a great deal of time doing everything BUT attempting to refute them.

The rest was just tripe, not worth responding to.

[Anonymous No.127101]

>>117729
>Implying the manifesto wasn't out of spite that he grew up in a middle class family and became poor
>Implying Karl Marx was a businessman

[Anonymous No.127120]

>>127042
are you high?
>JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! You don't need to explain that just because a person is a particular way doesn't mean they can not speak truth I fucking get it. You can never have taken a math class and still understand that 2 plus 2 equals 4 i fucking get it!

i stated it twice now twice! I dont know home much clearer i can make it.

I understand that just because you are fat doesn't mean you can't have good dieting advice! I Also understand that just because the carpet salesman says its the best rug on the mountain doesn't mean hes right!

For fuck sakes if you walked into a doctors office and he smoked a pack a day would you take his advice on taking up smoking for your health? This is not so much about communism as much as it is about understanding the point that credentials are valuable to making judgments.

[Anonymous No.127130]

>>127080
>The rest was just tripe, not worth responding to.

yet you responded with vigor! If I'm the idiot are you not the bigger one for taking my bait?

[Anonymous No.127136]

>>127001
Well it is true diets and global economic policies are different, but fad diets have played an active role in helping shortening hundreds of thousands of peoples lives. Never underestimate an idea, regardless of what type it is. It is also worth noting that under such measures nobody can justify group or social changes as no single person can test them on themselves as an individual.

Also you are citing action not doctrine, where as I debate mostly doctrine. What Karl Marx wrote didn't advocate many of the things that was done by the USSR and others, so I don't blame him or his doctrine as his doctrine was not followed. Much like I don't blame a car maker for a drunk driving accident. Ideas and action are related but not inseparable, although I do acknowledge that the review of those action can help us learn things.

[Anonymous No.127142]

>>127120
>For fuck sakes if you walked into a doctors office and he smoked a pack a day would you take his advice on taking up smoking for your health?
If he had evidence or made a sound argument. His behaviors do not matter. What you just mentioned is the logic behind Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

>>127130
I figured you would go after me if I ignored it, so I responded.

[Anonymous No.127172]

>>127136
ok so communism has never been tried? Ok so lets pretend that statement has ANY truth to it for a second. How do you get rid of scarcity? Im genuinely curious about this one.

[Anonymous No.127214]

>>127142
http://www.nizkor.org/
are you fucking kidding me? Heres where you want me to say something antisemitic so you can claim i am a racist and dismiss my opinions right? Not going happen, this isnt /pol/.

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

Here is a better example of what you are trying to say and is completely consistent with what you are claiming about Stefan Molyneux.

You just showed your hand you know that right? I know exactly where you are coming from and i know exactly what you are trying to do. Now i understand why you are arguing with me and its not

>I figured you would go after me if I ignored it, so I responded.

Its because you are putting yourself through college with these posts.

[Anonymous No.127223]

>>127214
It's an entirely legitimate term. I just used the first link in Google.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/13-ad-hominem-tu-quoque

Again you are judging the source rather than the argument because you dislike the source. The irony of this is palpable.

[Anonymous No.127239]

>>127172
Actually communism has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years with a high degree of success. Many isolated monasteries and isolated small villages used it very effectively. It is worth noting that such things encounter problems at population sizes of over 1000 people, although given new communication systems I think we could push it up to 1 million people before hitting the same scale issues. This is what gets me. If we have a good idea, people then try to apply it to everything often leading to devastation, look at Taylorism and how it helped some then was over applied and ruined many peoples lives.

As far as I can tell there is no way to remove scarcity. Trust me I have looked very hard at these post-scarcity models wishing them to work, sadly they don't work. However I don't think Karl Marx was referring to common absolute scarcity, I think he was referring to functional scarcity which can be reduced to insignificant levels and is far more important in how we live our lives.

[Anonymous No.127240]

>>127223
The fact that you do not see the double speak you are employing is what really worries me. You must have had a childhood full of obligations but no authority. Tell me did your parents use guilt to get you to obey them? Your parents are divorced right?

[PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs No.127252]

>>126951

Oh lordy, not that video.

[Anonymous No.127264]

>>127240
...there isn't any double speak in that at all. That's the term, and what the original video (and the argument you just made was).

The rest is you attempting to psychoanalyze (Which is what Molyneux does when he's losing an argument [See: My earlier article on "defooing" and any number of his debates]). It has nothing to do with the argument, and much like you above claim and the video itself serves only as an attempt to discredit the personality of those who disagree. I guess we're finally done.

[Anonymous No.127280]

>>127252
I know, half of it is really good and half of it is really bad. The thing is because of the bad half it is just about worthless to cite despite how well it is at summarizing other things. Thus it is a nice example of my point in the post I used it in.

[Anonymous No.127287]

>>127239
Actually communism has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years with a high degree of success

[citation needed].

>This is what gets me. If we have a good idea, people then try to apply it to everything often leading to devastation,

people don't try and apply it to everything people apply the doctrine that is used to run the country and every time it leads to death chaos and a net increase in human suffering. It is not the people that are the problem it is the fucking doctrine! Expecting people to conform to your flawed theories is like expecting the electron to behave the way you have defined it.
>I think he was referring to functional scarcity which can be reduced to insignificant levels and is far more important in how we live our lives.

Ok so how do you decide what the best use of the means of production or resources is?

[Anonymous No.127310]

>>127264
no you see we are not done you can do that all you want but you are the one running not me. The reason why i am trying to appeal to you on a emotional level is that it has become who-fully apparent that you do not wish to seek truth and consistency but to push your flawed doctrine while reinforcing your prejudices.

I want to understand why your beliefs are so strong that you will not even question the merit of the principles you push. It's obvious that the subject of communism/Stefan is a subject that is dear to you otherwise why would you be arguing so fervently? Emotional connection is the only avenue left when dealing with an unreasonable person.

[Anonymous No.127327]

>>127264
I seriously don't care about Stefan that much i just want you to understand why you hate him so much. Is not his inconsistencies that are making you post.

[Anonymous No.127347]

>>127310
>you do not wish to seek truth and consistency
I do. That's why I presented those videos that stand as rational arguments against them. Your attempts at emotional appeal have come in place of an argument to begin with.

>It's obvious that the subject of communism/Stefan is a subject that is dear to you otherwise why would you be arguing so fervently?
This was actually covered in the video, and I covered it earlier, I do not have to care about anything to make an argument against yours. My argument is "fervent" because his bad argument cannot be left stand unopposed lest people believe it.

You prescribe hate, when I could be entirely indifferent to his person and just dislike his bad arguments. This is all you have to go off of because I didn't waste my time psychoanalyzing him like you wanted me to. As I told you earlier, the videos were used as a concise version of my arguments.

You won't get an emotional connection out of me because all I care about are the facts, which are the place where Molyneux most strongly fails.

>>127327
His inconsistencies are all I have pointed to. The rest is supposition on your part.

This will be my last reply to you, as you've shown no interest in actually arguing against any of that. Have a good day.

[Anonymous No.127350]

>>127347
>against his arguments

[Anonymous No.127386]

>>127347

>, I do not have to care about anything to make an argument against yours

so your argument basically comes down to you can assert anything you want and i have no responsibility to myself or others to evaluate your credentials before believing your statements.

I have address the issue that you choose to ignore and try to make me look like i don't understand >>127120
>>127001. I did it twice. In fact right in the first ALL of your points are addressed before even stating a word about marx. Your argument shifts back and forth from ad hom being the problem to inconsistencies being the problem. The goal posts shift according to what inconsistencies i am addressing. You just keep double speaking and it gets annoying to deal with. I am trying to get YOU to understand your programing. I am arguing to try and understand why a person that i love feels the same way as you and trying to find arguments that might help them understand my stance. I am willing to state why this subject means something to me can you do yourself the same courtesy?

you can run all you want buy you are only running from yourself.

[Anonymous No.127405]

>>127287
Sadly many of them are not well documented as the isolation is a factor in there success and don't reach sizes or power levels that people find of interest. The Hutterite are one of the better documented ones. The Shakers had a similar case, but had a no sex policy that slowly ended them after a few generations. Not exactly Karl Marx vision, but it is working communism.
try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune
and branching out from there, they are hard to find and I don't have the list with me, but my sociology professor shared it with me a few years ago when discussing social systems in regards to government structuring. But WWI wiped many of them out as they were isolationist and pacifistic which didn't go over well with everyone else.

You are still assuming they followed Karl Marx's plan, have you even read his work?

Same way a group of friends split the bill for a pizza. Some kind of community based management system, these are hard to define as they tend to have fluid nature but often function as a bare bones de facto government. This is partly why larger systems have so many problems as the more people the harder it is to make a community decision.

[PlατΩ ( ´∀｀) !!kGRAAvdSlhs No.127428]

>>127280

I would say it is a lot more than just half bad. Banks don't make money by lending to people with bad credit, which is why they try not to. The myth it provides about the creation of fiat money is just a goldbug concoction, and even if it were true it still doesn't support hard money anyways. Finally, they made an "eeeeevil bankers" video, replete with JFK conspiracy theory, but refer to the Rothschilds as a "German family" and ignore what happened between 1933 and 1945.

[Anonymous No.127430]

>>127405
Communism is not isolated to Marx's work. There is evidence of communism in Greek Play writing. There is also a lot of evidence of feudalism and serfdom through out history this does not say anything about how the system works it simply implies its existence.

I have no problem with starting a commune. If you can somehow make it work I implore you to try but ONLY if it is voluntary. I do not believe in involuntary institutions.

[Anonymous No.127572]

>>127430
Yes, that is one of the things I though I was saying.
1. Karl Marx got things wrong, but was clearly smart so it would be nice to talk with him about his views given what we know now.
2. Communism can and in fact has worked, so the demonetization of it is not right. (however I don't have a problem with the demonetization of mass suffering and killing, as that stuff is obviously wrong)

And that was the problem with the USSR expansion policy that created such suffering and one of the obvious problems with Karl Marx works. It call for everyone to be part of the same group. It correctly saw the problem that external forces were often the major failing of such things around that time as WWI had devastated so many. However the call to eliminate such external forces in an implied fashion that is clearly wrong on ethical grounds and impractical even on cost considerations. Now if they had made a led by example as a successful country then systematically bought neighboring lands under fair conditions, they could have slowly but surely done the same thing without most of the bad stuff as people would want to come to a successful and happy place. Although that still doesn't address the size problems and other things.

[Mii2gp78JanTPCaZZSSzdJio7UCPQh(...) No.127604]

>>117856
Compassion is optional and my dollars are mine.

[Anonymous No.127818]

>>127572
i disagree with you and would like to ask you again.

how would you determine, on a large scale, the best use of resources and the means of production given that there are finite resources?

[Anonymous No.128438]

>>126488
>that video
top halal

[Anonymous No.128495]

>>126543
You are braindead

[Anonymous No.128554]

>>128495
Thank you for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.128577]

>>128554
You seem to be under the impression I want to hold a conversation with you.
I've talked to you too many times here to bother anymore.

[Anonymous No.128653]

>>118421
>it's not the job of the nation's military to do the same thing militaries have been doing since city-states

[Anonymous No.128666]

>>117856
Capitalism doesn't concentrate wealth as much as you think, the government helps those concentrate it though. We don't have true capitalism so to call it evil because of what's in place now is wrong.

[Anonymous No.129267]

>>128577
oh yeah those two times way too much.

[Anonymous No.129661]

>>126488
>owning property is theft
Marx did not say that, that was Proudhon, who Marx criticized.

[Anonymous No.129717]

>>129661
>expecting him to actually know his shit
come on

[Anonymous No.130887]

>>126499
>According to Marx that keyboard hand and mind are all personal property, which are perfectly fine.
I thought that would be Proudhon? Might have been both.

[Anonymous No.130903]

>>129661
Proudhon said that property (as in land, resources and the means to produce commodities) was theft. He also said that property (as in family heirlooms, clothes and such) were all acceptable.

[Anonymous No.135164]

>>130903
Yeah, I would think he would say something along those lines. Still need to read him but Marx from my knowledge definitely did not say that. The term ''property is theft' is apparently meant to be self-refuting. Something along the lines of begging the question (though I may be wrong).

[Anonymous No.138240]

>>127818
Well that is kind of changing the rules of the debate if you are now limiting it to only large scales. But I am open to "what if" thinking, so let's try it out.

I don't think it can be applied to a large scale, directly. It needs modification to work on larger scales. And this is the thing that gets people, they keep demand it solve problems it is not good at solving. Every systems has it strengths and weakness, which is why so many nations are hybrids. But I rarely see people arguing about how other nations don't follow the definitions they speak of. (the US is a lousy republic and is not even a real democracy, yet is often referred to as one or the other and even sometimes both)

One could try lots of small nearly identical communist nations. On a small nation level it would work, and then on the global level it would be a similar setup, but with each nation acting as an individual with isolationist tendencies. This helps avoid the size issue, but makes layers as a byproduct.

Also with things like the internet, a near perfectly distributed government network can be made using many key parts of communism. Where larger groups can ban and dis-ban as needed to meet the needs of everyone. It offers possible government structuring that would be impossible before. (And note that I am not advocating some A.I. do it, I think that is a bad idea.)

It would be wise to incorporate other aspects like voting to meet those needs, and a monetary unit system would be needed to aid in better regulation. However such things don't have to work in the normal sense, like money you use to grade value but not to buy things. Now before you or someone else points out "that is not communism". Can you name a nation (especially a modern one) that actually followed the definitions? One can have a 70% communist nation, and call it as such as it is mostly communist.

Your thoughts so far?