/lit/ - Literature

Because it's better than republican or democrat philosophy.

because some people are still 17

>>5171877
Get out

>>5171872
Wrong board.

>>5171885
No.

The term "libertarian" has been hijacked by the tea party. They are not libertarian in the slightest. True libertarianism is the only logical philosophy. I'm sure your fedora core professor has brainwashed you to believe otherwise, though

>>5171894

>True libertarianism is the only logical philosophy
>Calls other people fedoras

Because the world is becoming more connected. More and more laws, regulations and social conventions are being put in place to manage it all. Many feel that their personal power is being eroded away by a faceless collective and desire a simpler system.
This isn't a good reason to believe in libertarianism but I think it is a reason some people do. That and wealthy business owners want to be completely unregulated so they can do their wealthy business owner thing.

Live and let live. I do what I want, you do what you want. As long as what you want does not impede another to do what they want(murder,rape)....go for it.

If you don't believe in that then you are a piece of shit not worth knowing.

>>5171894
Oh I know the differences in the rightwing schism. That's why your lords are trying to marginalize the presidency. They know damn well their party wont win it back.

Not /lit/
>>>/pol/

>>5171906

>Live and let live

That is not how society works, try again.

>>5171907
My lords? I fucking hate the right wing a lot more than I hate the left at this particular moment in time.

>>5171872
>being an authoritarian
>any time, ever
i remember when, if you wanted to be cool, you just wore nice clothes and pretended to like music you didn't

now you have to be a fascist

>>5171910
Who said it WAS how it works? I said that it's how it SHOULD work. But no....we have too many insecure cunts trying to push their shit on others.

>>5171917

>Hurf durf anyone who has an opinion that's even a hairline different than mine is just a hipster trying to look cool

>>5171921

>we have too many insecure cunts trying to push their shit on others.

Because humans are deeply social animals. This is how tribes form, how society defines itself. Its how chiefs rise up from the rabble and instill order. Do you even evolutionary sociology?

>>5171914
The Koch brothers, among others.

Are you anti-corporation? If so, that's not considered "free market" enough for most of your fellow libertarian

>>5171917
>If it's not libertarian it's authoritarian.
>If it's not libertarian it's edgy.

>>5171931
I'm not anti or pro corporation. And the Koch brothers are fucking scum

All politics beyond what puts food on your table is necessarily insane, OP. The conservatives are about as sensible as it comes (but they're amoral demongod-whipped pussies).

The tea party is massively anti gay. Which goes 100% against libertarian philosophy. Tell me again how the tea party is libertarian.

Fuck gay people (no homo)

>>5171906
Even if a libertarian society were to exist within a couple decades it would begin to look almost exactly like the one we have now. The only difference would be that instead of the government collecting taxes, building roads, setting rules and managing land distribution it would be a privately owned corporation or oligarchy.

People do not exist in a vacuum, they socialize and build. We have the systems we do because we want them. We have the restrictions we do because they allow us to live with certain luxuries. Sooner or later a group of people usually show to provide a better quality of life at the cost of membership.

All libertarianism does is give people the opportunity to build what we have now.

>>5171936
>I'm not anti or pro corporation.
So you're pro
>And the Koch brothers are fucking scum
So you have some hate for fellow Libertarians and corporatists.

Well, I hope someday you make up your mind whose side you're on.

>>5171914
>>5171872
>>5171877
>>5171885
>>5171894
>>5171899
>>5171932
>>5171936

Butterfly for once is right, this topic belongs on pol.

>>5171949
The Koch brothers are not libertarian.

>>5171949
The libertarians (of the anglosphere variety) are intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt, or both.

I wish they would just fuck off already. Nobody is buying your pathetic philosophy.

What is wrong with being socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

I wish that everyone was exactly like me and that I could fuck myself

>>5171872
>philosophy
>dead

That's not how it works. And if 20 failures and counting hasn't killed communism, then I'd say creating a massively successful Western world hasn't killed libertarianism.

>>5171961
Because sometimes you should be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Clinging to an one size fits all ideological stance is foolish.

>>5171960
>they/your
Meh?

>>5171954
Oh but they ARE. Just not universally loved by other libertarians. They are the Haves variety, while you are, most likely, something of a Have-not.

>>5171961

>fiscally conservative

Never go full retard. The world of production and economics is changing so fast and so drastically that being a fiscal conservative will only result in total catastrophe.

>>5171965
Your brain is of the tiny variety, anon.

>>5171960
>The libertarians (of the anglosphere variety) are intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt, or both.
what brings you to that conclusion?

>>5171966
Obviously, I'm not saying you lean those ways 100% of the time. Just more often than not.

>>5171932
they're antonyms
>>5171922
glad we agree

>>5171968
Sending the retards out to plunder other countries is actually a pretty solid economic policy if your country can maintain it. It's redistribution and accumulation all in one.

>>5171977
Builds solidarity, too, which is a handy thing to have around.

>>5171968
>The world of production and economics is changing so fast and so drastically that being a fiscal conservative will only result in total catastrophe.

Ok, out of all the empty platitudes in this thread, this is the stupidest one by far. Please give your reasoning why giving the government more of the citizen's money is beneficial to all, and how a fast and changing economy is in any way aligned to a massive bureaucracy.

>>5171977

>if your country can maintain it

Guess what? Almost all countries can't maintain it.
Getting resources through conquest, at least nowadays, is only economically viable for third world countries.

Oh....am I misunderstanding the word "conservative"? I always take with "Christian" at the front, a squeamish "leave everything the way it is!"

>>5171872
same way you buy into communism whether you know it or not

>>5171987

>fiscally conservative

fis·cal
[fis-kuhl]
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to the public treasury or revenues:

con·serv·a·tive
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

In other words, leave it the way it is, don't change anything.
And in case you don't know, refusing to adapt when things are changing is how species go extinct in nature.

>>5171975
>If it's not black it's white.

At least you're the intellectually bankrupt, as opposed to morally bankrupt, sort. Stupidity I can forgive.

>>5171961
Capitalism is a fucked up system which is destroying almost all aspects of our lives. But it makes all of us richer... so we all accept this.

If ever there was proof that there is a disconnect with what a man desires and what makes a man happy, that proof would be capitalism. The answer to our desires, yet the cause of our own profound psychological decay as a society.

Capitalism is alienation personified. It bleeds all life from it surrounding. Why is atheism so popular in the capitalist society? Because capitalism drains the world of anything to believe in.

Fuck this earth. God damn.

>>5171974
Then why label yourself at all? How are you a principled ideologue if you're making exceptions?

>>5171997

Good god man, are you me?

>>5171987
>giving the government more of the citizen's money

Govt. prints the money. It would literally be worth spit if Uncle Sam didn't accept it to pay your taxes.

>how a fast and changing economy is in any way aligned to a massive bureaucracy

The economy is aligned with a lot of massive bureaucracies. They're called "corporations."

>>5171988
When you say "third world" do you mean countries that are neither communist nor aligned with NATO?

>>5171988
Dude the entire western world lives by raping the third world. That's the benefits of being organised where others aren't. Those others don't properly (collectively, in a sense) value their goods. All the US does these days is TV, dude. And there's your distribution of the wealth pillaged from the poor between the already wealthy. Hey, someone has to be rich (supposedly).

>>5172003
No, but private bureaucracy is good because of the free market. You just have to do the research. Let me find a Youtube video you should watch and you'll understand. Haven't you read Ayn Rand? I wish John Galt was here. He'd sure show you.

>>5172011

The other guy was talking about military conquest, which isn't economically viable
Corporate conquest, however...

>>5172011
Oh, but we dress it up in "economics"...

>>5172018
Having a big fucking army is economically viable, though.

>>5172027

No it is not.

>>5172002
No, but it's nice to know I'm not alone.

>>5172029
See, the problem is that you're dumb. The only thing that's not economically viable is having a whole load of people doing nothing. And if there's nothing for them to do (which there isn't), make something up.

>>5171988
But it is viable to support multinational corporations based in your own country. They go out and set up franchises in other countries and rake in the foreign cash. Let them do their thing, compete with each other, weed out inefficiencies and in return you get a number of incredibly powerful entities willing to spread your influence to your neighbours. It's the conquest of the modern age.

The only problem with this kind of policy is that it requires constant competition between corporations which requires constant room for growth. You can only build so many houses. Shampoo technology can only advance so far. We like to think we can constantly develop all the time but there are lags, long ones. When development space falls runs thin capitalism comes apart at the seams.

>>5172032

Yeah, why doesn't the united states juts invade every country that's weaker than it? Like Canada, they've got shit tons of oil. Why don't we just invade them guys?

>>5171996
You put the crux of the entire species on the government. Can you be more delusional?

>>5171997
This poster is all I can imagine when I read these empty posts. Lots of self loathing and emotional appeals. Never is there any consideration that capitalism is actually beneficial for man, it must always be a spawn, because it allows people to freely interact and that is of course a big no-no to idealists. It is perhaps a great thing that the universe is not idealistic, else it would be people like this directing it.

>Govt. prints the money. It would literally be worth spit if Uncle Sam didn't accept it to pay your taxes.

No it would not. It matters that the people find the pieces of paper worthy of bartering with, as they trust that they will be able to barter for other items with it. The government backing up the currency is a popular way of establishing trust, but it isn't due to them printing the money, its because they will refund its value.

>The economy is aligned with a lot of massive bureaucracies. They're called "corporations."

Which cut down on bureaucratic waste brutally; its the reason people complain about capitalism in the first place, its so effective at pruning inefficient jobs.

>>5172038

>Observing the rules of nature and deducing that they apply to governments in the same way that they apply to individuals means you are delusional

Not sure if bait.

>>5172033
Except that isn't how it happens. The cash gets concentrated into the hands of a small minority, and nation-states don't benefit all that much because corporations base themselves in the nations that will give them the most perks like no-bid contracts and low tax rates.

>>5171921
>that it's how it SHOULD work
>we have too many insecure cunts trying to push their shit on others
The irony is delicious.

>>5172011
>Dude the entire western world lives by raping the third world.

How so? Setting up factories in poor countries, which offer them better wages, more purchasing power, more products, security in their wages, etc, is raping them? You do realize rape is a coercive, forcible act, right? Show me Apple holding a gun to Chinese workers' heads or burning their farms down so they have to work for them to live.

>>5172036
Because it's not economically viable. Dude . . . OK, I started off wrong with that plundering bit (though you have to plunder a little bit if you've got a big fucking army), but what I'm trying to get through to you is that you and pretty much everyone else are retarded and good for nothing, but still a part of high society which must be tended to in case you fuck it up. Consider the US army like an extension of the welfare system, basically, only with the added benefit of that it doesn't hurt to have a big fucking army.

>>5172047
Yeah, yeah, we dress it up in "economics." Shut up, retard.

>>5172053

>but what I'm trying to get through to you is that you and pretty much everyone else are retarded and good for nothing

>I'm supposed to take you seriously after you say this

>>5172059
Hey I don't give a fuck, lol.

>>5172042
>being such a sophist that you believe you can apply biological principle to economics in this blind a fashion

I know you are serious because a troll would do better. Why don't you write up a nihilist work based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and how that totally means we can't be sure about anything? There need be no need for the government to continuously supplying more and more services for people when it fails to fund half of them. There must be change yes, but not change for the sake of change. If you know biology, you should also know that most mutations are damaging.

>>5172063

>>5172038
>Corporations cut down on bureaucratic waste

Jesus fucking Christ. I love it when capitalist libertarians come into discussions with puffed out chests, and then immediately prove they don't know shit. Corporations suffer calculation problems the same as any bureaucracy, it's the problem of the firm. A classic economic problem, which if you knew jack shit about economics, you probably would be familiar with. But then again, you're a libertarian.

Now let's get to the core of this. By what metric is capitalism beneficial for man?

>>5172058
>I don't understand economics, but I know its evil

Its pointless. I look forward to collecting your red leaflets on campus when classes start soon.

>>5172066
Some people are smart like me. I am .001% intelligent, though. Protip: Life's a joke.

>>5172065

>sophist biological principle blind fashion nihilist heisenberg uncertainty principle if you truly knew

Okay this is pretentious even by /lit/ standards.

>>5172069
>Corporations suffer calculation problems the same as any bureaucracy, it's the problem of the firm.

Which they seek to eliminate, for profit. Its their motivation for increasing efficiency, of which government has little.

>By what metric is capitalism beneficial for man?

Standard of living, technological advancement, freedom of movement, the ability to voluntarily interact supports a more liberal, democratic society, a wider assortment of products available on the market. What exactly do you want?

>>5172043
But even with low tax rates the country still makes a whole lot. A country know for being corporate friendly can attract more corporations which means more money. A country that makes itself nice and cosy with powerful businesses has their hand on the pulse of production which gives them a better base to spread their influence. The reason the USA is super power is because they grew a number of successful businesses and then set them loose on the world to spread the American brand.

Nations don't really need money, they need a means to maintain themselves and hold power over their competitors. Capitalism takes pressure off government and allows it to mostly fill the roll of arbiter while private entities do all the heavy lifting. Power by association.

>>5172074
People who think the economy is complex are fucking retarded.

>>5172079
How is it pretentious? You think "rules of nature" is somehow less pretentious than "biological principle"? Is this why you all hate "economics"? Because it threatens to replace your "togetherness"?

>>5172085
>Capitalism takes pressure off government and allows it to mostly fill the roll of arbiter while private entities do all the heavy lifting. Power by association.
This is exactly what I don't like about it.

>>5172087
Economics is complex. That's why it has its own field of study and there continue to be new discovers today.

>>5172095
Wow. Go ahead and give us an example of a discovery bro.

>>5172044
That's not ironic at all. Libertarian is default. It's not pushing anything

>>5172090
Why?

>>5172080
>Its their motivation for increasing efficiency, of which government has little.

I don't really understand why people think a budgeted institution of any sort doesn't care about how far it can stretch its dollar. I mean really apart from the military which enjoys an enormous popular support and has almost never heard of the term "budget cut," every other organization has to do as much as possible with what they're given. NASA can't blow every dollar carelessly and then go ask for an extra fifty thousand to launch another rocket.

>>5172099
>Libertarian is default.

Judging by nature "might makes right" is the default. Libertarianism comes much, much later.

>>5172097

Applied economics:
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.3.1.1

Macro:
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.5.1.1

Micro:
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.1

Policy:
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.4.230

This takes a simple Google search. What are you getting at?

>>5172087
It is complex. In any sense of the term. Every single human being is a separate variable. Economic models can only approximate reality by vastly simplifying the problem.

>>5172108
I'm getting at you being a joke. Stop making appeals to authority and outline a discovery. Be warned, though: I can map the entirety of economic evolution in a few lines.

>>5172080
>Standard of living

So, wealth.

>technological advancement

Wealth again

>freedom of movement

Only for money. Look at NAFTA. The freedom of money to move to South America, but no freedom for labor to leave.

>the ability to voluntarily interact supports a more liberal, democratic society

No. Liberalism is a strain of capitalism. But Capitalism is not liberalism. See China. Or see, early 20th century Europe. Capitalism thrives just fine without democracy. Better in many cases.

>a wider assortment of products available on the market

Wealth again! How many times do you have to rephrase that? We get it!

>What exactly do you want?

Happiness.

I want a society where human beings are happy.

Wealth does not make us happy. Capitalism is proof of that, more than anything. The United States is wealthy beyond imagining. Even our poor are inundated with the plastic detritus of capitalism. Yet depression is rampant.

No religion ever prescribed wealth as an answer. No serious philosophy ever saw wealth as the key to happiness. Now we take it as a given.

>>5172102
Look at public education: the worse they do, the more money they get. Certain protected branches get guaranteed tax dollars, which promotes laziness and inefficiency. Some do have to be efficient with their money, but NASA gets a sliver of the budget so its hardly much of a consideration.

>>5172080
oh my god

this post makes me physically ill

your understanding of economics is literally negative

just fuck off, you're doing more harm than good with your not-even-austriantard-level arguments

- phd student in economics at top 5

>>5172110
Whatever bro

They don't. The term as it's applied today mostly refers to neoliberalism.

>>5172110
People who think economics has any actually applicable knowledge are fucking retarded.

It's odd to me that sociology is considered a bogus field, but economics is highly regarded. Economics is just a specific subset of sociology, concerned with the productive elements of society.

We wouldn't let sociologists dictate political policies, why do we let economists? Because economics only serves one purpose: to serve as a justification for the policies of the rich. It is cultural hegemony of the worst kind.

>>5172126
Now, now, don't besmirch my intelligence in associating yourself with me.

>>5171947

The best examples of libertarian societies, cited by other libertarians, I could find on the Web were a 9th century state in Iceland and Xeer law in Somalia.

>Somalia


The irony

>>5172130
Man, I used to be a communist.

>>5172116
>this specific country has some specific inefficiencies in specific branches of the government, THEREFORE, free markets prevail (please ignore the exceptions)

it's so aggravatingly cute when people on 4chan try to talk about econ

>>5172111
>Be warned, though: I can map the entirety of economic evolution in a few lines.

So what exactly do you want for a discover? An economist tripping over the meaning of life on his way to work? Now you have me laughing. Why don't you go ahead and "map" this one out?
>>5172112
>>technological advancement
>Wealth again
The internet is not a form of wealth. Many technological advances don't have everything to do with paychecks. Cures for disease come to mind.

>No. Liberalism is a strain of capitalism. But Capitalism is not liberalism. See China. Or see, early 20th century Europe. Capitalism thrives just fine without democracy. Better in many cases.

China's economic trade zones have less stringent rules and regulations. The rising new money in China possess problems for the communist regime. The ability to choose who you work for is liberal on its face.

>Wealth does not make us happy.
If your goal in life is happiness, why not do manual labor and spend your wages on legal drugs like caffeine and nicotine? You'd probably maximize the amount of serotonin in your brain.

How do you plan to make people happy exactly? By force? Do you ever question if perhaps humanity has not always had the same rates of depression and other ills, and its just with better medical care, detection, connectivity, and access to information that we can now recognize our unhappiness?

>>5172116
Cost per pupil peaked in 2010 and has been falling every year since.

When people point to the prior rise in cost per pupil, they ignore the reasoning and simply assume it's a matter of throwing more money at teachers because teachers and their unions are the bogeyman of education.

In fact much of the increase was due to increasing funding to areas that were previously underfunded, such as special education and school lunch programs. Not to mention the appearance suddenly in the '90s of an entire new permanent expenditure for every school in America: Computers. Because educators had the foresight to realize that computer literacy would be a necessity by the time those kids were adults, and they were right.

As for schools doing "worse," they're not:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/january/test-scores-ranking-011513.html

Libertarian philosophy isn't a bad idea on the surface. Government has proven to be detrimental to the personal freedom of individuals. A strong example of this would be the TSA doing random checks on citizens and the NSA spying on citizens. However, the part that the philosophy seems to ignore is that the free market will not guarantee that these things could not exist.

Another problem is the concept that a truly free market could decrease income inequality. While lobbying can exist and turn anti-worker (like it often does), the free market will not self regulate because business owners will only work within their own capital gain, rather than the interest of their workers, especially if the workers are disposable. It just seems like common sense that an unregulated free market would be detrimental to income inequality. Hell, that's why unions exist in the first place.

Libertarians surely do bring up good points, but achieving a stable libertarian society based on capitalist economics is simply absurd.

>>5172139
Nah. Stay dumb.

>>5171997
"black and white" is the worst phrase you could've employed, so i guess i'm proud that you made such a bold move.

anything can have authoritarian and libertarian components, but the sum of anything cannot be "authoritarian and libertarian." you cannot claim to be maximizing autonomy by requesting unyielding obedience, they're extremes for a reason.

i would call you an idiot but the rest of your post was so angsty i'm afraid it might make you cry.

>>5172139
>The rising new money in China possess problems for the communist regime.
dude I'm Chinese and I would appreciate it if you stopped talking about shit you don't understand

Libertarians are the epitome of idealism. I'd place libertarianism on the idealism scale above communism and far above monarchism.

>>5171951
but pol sucks

>>5172118
So your professors tell you government is trying to generate a profit or that capitalism makes people's lives worse? What university are you going to exactly? I've hardly said anything controversial in the field unless you have some gripe over what government can be good at doing.

>>5172126
>We wouldn't let sociologists dictate political policies
Except that we do.

>>5172137
I'm not asking you to ignore the acceptation, I'm asking you to compare the education spending vs. the NASA spending. Education is also a problem in other countries besides the US, though here its a more heavily debated topic, yes.

>>5172112
Happiness is not the realm of business or government. Businesses provide goods and services in exchange for currency. Wealth is their motive because wealth increases social mobility and decreases the effort needed to survive. They may be deceitful but they don't harm the customer (you and me) if they can help it. Their presence aided in the development of the first world and gave you and me the opportunity to be depressed over the senselessness of life rather than the fact that we might die of starvation or exposure this winter.
Governments care about their influence and authority. In the case of our democratic government that means they want to keep you and me from rebelling or moving away. They provide basic services, keep the peace and organises powerful influences within the state. They do not exist to make us happy, they exist to keep us content. Happiness or unhappiness is the responsibility of the individual. As long as I am free enough to be more worried about my own happiness than survival then the powers that be aren't doing a horrible job.

>>5172155
I'm on my phone and about to sleep so all I'll say is that the idea that corporations work to "eliminate" the "calculation problem" as you so cavalierly stated earlier, implying that the government could but simply does not address the calculation problem, is so hilariously socialistic in some respects that it reveals that your understanding of the economic principles that you talk about is thinner than a sheet of silk. Even for a libertarian, you are hilariously uneducated. I suggest making use of google and Wikipedia.

>>5172151
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chinas-newly-rich-are-flaunting-wealth--and-giving-communist-rulers-a-headache/2011/08/05/gIQA801KMJ_story.html

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2012/12/defying-mao-rich-chinese-crash-the-communist-party/

You might be Chinese but that doesn't mean you are omniscient of China. Money is power, so of course a new generation of money is problematic for an existing government, especially one that wants to limit what they can do with their money.

>>5172155
btw I am quite sure you have not heard anything in the field at all, and no, YouTube videos by Friedman don't count

>>5172169
I never said they don't try to eliminate it, only that government has more incentive to be worse at it.

>>5172173
lmao dude just stop, you think I'm not aware of what those articles talk about? your understanding of China is absolutely zero, and I suggest you stop reading Western media sources reporting on China

>>5172176
the entire idea of some entity "solving" the economic calculation problem is a socialist idea, which is addressed quite well in Hayek's writings btw

you have NO IDEA what the words coming out of your mouth (or which you're typing I suppose) even mean. drop the polemic and pick up a textbook, buddy

>>5172178
You are free to talk about how the Chinese government benefits politically from the new rich and how freer trade has made people more appreciative of communist rule.

>>5172188
it's 230am and I'm on my phone; I'm not explaining shit to someone as obviously retarded as you, someone who still describes the government as "communist"

>>5171949
God you're a cunt sometimes.

>>5172184
Is all you want to do is pick a fight? When did I say that business/free market/whatever it is you think I said solves the problem? When did I say government/bureaucracy/whatever else solves the problem? Of course they all try. Are you going to then give it to the socialists that capitalist bureaucracy is the same as the government?


>>5172195
>it's 230am and I'm on my phone; I'm not explaining shit to someone as obviously retarded as you, someone who still describes the government as "communist"

Were you the guy opening the dictionary before and pretending that those specific definitions are the only way words are used? Yeah, China isn't "communist" any more. The fact they have free trade zones by itself disqualifies them from the definition, not to mention allowing certain factories to "own" produced items after they reach quotas and other policies. So where do you go from there? Well, they still call themselves communists, they are made up of communist party members, and while the NPC is elected and now recently holds a lot of power, they still tend to preach communist virtues.

>>5172223
>hurr durr I have no idea who Deng Xiaoping is

>>5172233
Now its you who is getting on my nerves. I know who he is because my professor was obsessed with the guy. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", yeah I know. Let's pretend his party didn't try to purge him twice or three times or whatever it was during the Cultural revolution, and that he himself always swore that he was a socialist no matter how many capitalistic reforms he instituted. The Free trade zones and factory surplus policies I mentioned before were his doing. Again, because they have some capitalistic policy now, that means we can't distinguish China from Western-style capitalism and free market?

Whatever, I am done. I see that its pointless to argue because we will just be splitting hairs over wording.

>>5172204
Underrated post.

>>5171949
Holy fuck, she's cute.