In about 15 years I will be the leader of an European country. Suggest what books I should read to be the best at this that I can be.

File: 19 KB, 800x533, Europa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri May 9 15:43:38 2014 No.4872753 [DELETED]

In about 15 years I will be the leader of an European country.

Suggest what books I should read to be the best at this that I can be.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:49:37 2014 No.4872772 120 Days of Sodom

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:51:34 2014 No.4872777 File: 116 KB, 800x524, 800px-BushmenSan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4872753 Something on learning primitive skills.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:52:06 2014 No.4872778 I'll wait for answers itt

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:53:40 2014 No.4872781 >>4872772 You should recommend Philosophy in the Bedroom. In that work Sade actually puts forth a suggestion for the arrangement of a libertine republic. It's a lot more interesting than 120 days.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:54:21 2014 No.4872784 Why the West Rules - For Now (Ian Morris)

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:54:23 2014 No.4872785 File: 16 KB, 240x320, Groucho knew his shit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4872753 Dat Capital

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:54:49 2014 No.4872787 >>4872753 Dao Te King. Seriously. Also Zhuangzi.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 15:58:52 2014 No.4872797 >>4872787 Might as well get some Confucius up in there for balance. As for Yurp, Machiavelli (not merely The Prince) seems obvious. Also Gracian's Oracle thing. And Plato's Republic of course.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:05:01 2014 No.4872807 OP here, be serious please. What books would you expect a benevolent dictator type leader to have read in order to create his policies.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:05:51 2014 No.4872812 >>4872807 You've had nothing but valid responses.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:12:00 2014 No.4872831 >>4872753 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:15:47 2014 No.4872842 >>4872812 - >>4872777

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:17:50 2014 No.4872846 >>4872842 >not recognising that anon's subtle play on the decline of europe as a relevant power in the world that should be anticipated by future rulers.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:18:52 2014 No.4872848 File: 21 KB, 300x300, Might_is_right.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4872753

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:19:49 2014 No.4872853 >>4872753 Du Pape by Joseph de Maistre.

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:19:55 2014 No.4872854

>>4872807
Marx and a bunch of socialist crap. Raymond Aron. Ernest Gellner. Max Weber. Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt maybe. Hannah Arendt. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics. A buncha French crap and a bunch of economics and finance and public policy stuff in general.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:20:12 2014 No.4872855 the complete idiot's guide to benevolent dictatorship

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:21:28 2014 No.4872862 >>4872846 Pretty sure it was his opinion on the current state of Europe actually. Neither of which is accurate.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:22:30 2014 No.4872869 >>4872854 Is this just so that he knows what not to do?

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:26:07 2014 No.4872878

>>4872869
some of it sure. nobody's perfect

if you have some examples of The Thinker And Ideology Who Never Made Any Mistakes Ever And The Places They Ruled Were Perfect Utopias i'd sure like to hear them. alternately what parts of my post are you actually swinging at here

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:26:46 2014 No.4872880 >>4872869 You realise some degree of socialism is the only alternative to full blown insurrection as automatisation keeps increasing, right? There will come a moment where it's either basic income or the guillotine.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:27:12 2014 No.4872883 File: 13 KB, 113x49, 1381939422730.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4872869 >>4872878 lol rekt

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:29:24 2014 No.4872895

>>4872883
well i mean, i kind of suspect he's coming after me for saying socialism, in which case he's an idiot because most of the people i named clearly aren't socialists (no, yeah, Raymond Aron is all about the workers' revolution)

but i'd like him to say it in case he has some weird beef with structural realism or something, idk man

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:29:26 2014 No.4872896 File: 12 KB, 384x350, stalin_384x350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4872878 kek

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:29:47 2014 No.4872898 >>4872878 Marx's works essentially ruined half of Europe. >>4872880 This I admit is true. What do you suggest would be the criteria on which socialist handouts are given out when everything is done by machines?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:32:21 2014 No.4872908 >>4872753 You do know it's _a_ European country, because the pronunciation of Europe begins with a /j/?

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:32:52 2014 No.4872910

>>4872898
>>4872896
I'm honestly shocked you could read a post where I recommend Raymond Aron and Ernest Gellner and Carl fucking Schmitt who was a literal Nazi and think that I was advocating full Marxism

I think Marx is a good analyst but a poor political thinker. I'm not a Marxist and I would not encourage him to be a Marxist. It's a useful perspective so someone interested in the subject should read about it. You fucking /pol/ muppets.

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:35:26 2014 No.4872923
File: 26 KB, 323x288, mello wonders to himself why, exactly, are you are so enraged at this moment, but he also enjoys the spectacle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4872898
>Marx's works essentially ruined half of Europe.
Remind me who started the world wars and who ended them.

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:35:38 2014 No.4872924

>>4872898
>This I admit is true. What do you suggest would be the criteria on which socialist handouts are given out when everything is done by machines?
I'm in favour of universal unconditional basic income for every adult citizen that allows for housing, medical care, proper nutrition etc as well as some luxuries/money to play around with. In addition to that income people could find jobs or start businesses as they please without losing the basic income. This allows for situation where workers have a good negotiating position because they are in a position where they can actually afford not to take a job. It also allows for an interesting entrepreneurial climate, especially regarding small businesses with the internet in place.

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:40:37 2014 No.4872934

>>4872924
Do you not feel that such a culture would cause a lack of entrepreneurship instead of fueling it? Most people simply living their comfortable lives and not feeling like they need to improve anymore?

A lot of scientists and business creators come from the poor classes who feel the need to improve their own financial state.

In most of the post-communist states, people are so used to getting everything for nothing that they're surprised when they have to work long hours or create their own businesses.

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:46:33 2014 No.4872950

>>4872934
Your lack of human understanding is rather appalling.

But to cut the talk short, there are studies that prove that basic income doesn't have negative effects on motivation. Besides, you can just look for the numbers of volunteers, that would undoubtedly skyrocket, when people don't have to worry about basics anymore.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:48:09 2014 No.4872957 >>4872950 What sort of jobs do you imagine people could do for part time income? I don't know, the welfare state here seems to be proving otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:48:22 2014 No.4872959 >>4872934 People are going to be more likely to be entrepreneurs when the risk and opportunity cost is significantly lower.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:50:58 2014 No.4872968 >>4872959 Then why is America the leader in business creation and new technologies even though their welfare is appalling, and Europe is just drifting by?

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:51:03 2014 No.4872970

>>4872934
No, I wouldn't. I think people are mostly not driven to entrepreneurial activities out of sheer necessity, if you leave the coke game and such out of it. Most people get a job at McDonalds out of necessity, they do not start a libertine engravings ebay shop. I think the lack of anxiety for survival would actually free people up to experiment.

Of course, there would also be plenty of people content to do fuck all. But that's fine too. They're fulfilling their part as consumers and the system can handle that just fine.

The key is that people don't have to work long hours, but they can if they want to. When basic necessities are guaranteed, those still driven to undertake things are the passionate ones who actually want to do so.

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:55:59 2014 No.4872984

>>4872968
You think those entrepreneurs would lose their motivation if they get a thousand bucks no questions asked per month? Then you'd assume they are creating new technologies merely to secure that first thousand dollars and are otherwise disinterested. America will be obsessed with creating business even if the alternative isn't starvation, it's more of a cultural thing I believe.

Anonymous Fri May 9 16:56:26 2014 No.4872986

>>4872970
But there are countries, most of Western and Northern Europe, where you can live comfortable without working even now. Yet pretty much all those people are lazy and don't try to improve their wellbeing.

As for them fulfilling their part as consumers, it seems to me that what you're proposing is simply distributing money made by people who own stuff, to people who don't do anything, so they can give them back to the ones who own stuff by buying it.

Why not just cut them out completely?

And as for the last bit, do you think it is in the human nature for those few who are making new things, improving old things, and making more money to be fine with that money then being spent on people who don't do anything?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 16:57:48 2014 No.4872991 You're lying, but I'd recommend Plato's republic.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:01:26 2014 No.4873008 IF YOUR'RE NOT MUSLIM YOU WON'T BE ANYTHING IN EUROPE IN 15 YEARS BUT A CUCKOLDED HUSBAND AND GRANDFATHER TO MUSLIM BABBIES

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:08:43 2014 No.4873039

>>4872986
>But there are countries, most of Western and Northern Europe, where you can live comfortable without working even now. Yet pretty much all those people are lazy and don't try to improve their wellbeing.
That's not true at all. I'm actually one of those people that are in fact very content to do fuck all, but most of my welfare brethren are filled with shame and restlessness and can't wait to find something to do and some purpose to their daily existence. Most people on welfare, contrary to populist shit talking, actually do not want to be there. A lot of them can't wait to get a job and if they can't get one or are simply too old get a lot of joy out of volunteering. Career unemployment is relatively rare, but nonetheless perfectly manageable.

>As for them fulfilling their part as consumers, it seems to me that what you're proposing is simply distributing money made by people who own stuff, to people who don't do anything, so they can give them back to the ones who own stuff by buying it.
Well that's how economies keep rolling. We'd be a lot worse off without people on welfare buying stuff. You could even call them job creators because they create a lot of demand. Consumption is actually more important than production. Sure, we can't do with out the latter, but most people's duty is the former. Not even half of your average population works, and that's under current circumstances. It will only become less.

>Why not just cut them out completely?
Because they will come and take your shit and kill you, to put it bluntly. Never see welfare merely as charity, see it as protection money you pay the poor to leave you alone. Also, you simply need them because they create demand. People have become very efficient at production to the point that we would produce too much if every consumer would also participate in producing. There's nothing wrong with only a minority of people being economically productive. In fact, it has become an inevitable arrangement.

>And as for the last bit, do you think it is in the human nature for those few who are making new things, improving old things, and making more money to be fine with that money then being spent on people who don't do anything?
Part of the money, sure. For the reasons mentioned above. I do think they should still have perks of course. Let them have their more fancy type of consumption with grand holidays and good champagne. I'll take the commie block and the pints of lager.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:11:18 2014 No.4873051 mein kampf obv

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:11:58 2014 No.4873055 >>4872910 I merely kekked because I found the way you phrased your post to be witty. Calm down, friend.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:12:24 2014 No.4873057 >>4872753 Jean Baudrillard - The Perfect Crime

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:16:50 2014 No.4873074

>>4873039
I live in the UK and lots of people my age are perfectly content to be on benefits and not work. It seems a pretty acceptable thing to be in "working" class areas.

Why not just get rid of the people who don't want to contribute?

A small population of intelligent and creative types would be enough to keep the machines running and create new ideas and technologies. Without the need for a workforce, the need for people dies out too.

I wouldn't be fine with putting any of my earned money towards people who don't work at all. And if I am neede enough to find a job in this society that's completely automated, I can feel confident that my interest would be protected against the common useless people. Just kill them all, nothing of value would be lost.

If all we need them for is buying things, we can get robots to do that.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:20:58 2014 No.4873100 >>4872807 Violence and Social Order by North Hobbes Biography of Frederik II Cant think of anything else at the moment

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:22:33 2014 No.4873104 >>4872991 >Plato's republic you serious mate? Schopenhauer would be far better

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:27:02 2014 No.4873129

>>4873074
Well if you hate people who aren't successful capitalists (this includes a lot of the intelligent and creative types since there are plenty forms of genius you can't easily capitalise upon) and fantasise about killing them all that's okay but that has little do do with this, there is nothing realistic about it. Giving people basic income is realistic and would work out in the best way for everybody.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:31:22 2014 No.4873149 >>4873129 How would you choose what the basic income would be? What would stop prices rising so that it's always pushed to below the living wage?

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:32:23 2014 No.4873153

>>4872753

Mein Kampf.

inb4 >>>/pol/
Hitler was one of the greatest leaders of European countries ever, along with Mussolini.

I wouldn't bother with Marxist literature more than a quick history lesson of WWII. Marx's books should not be ignored, even though his ideologies were fallacious and in the end failed.

DO NOT FORGET that banks were the ones waging WWII and Stalin was just a puppet, so was Hitler to an extent.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:33:26 2014 No.4873160

>>4872957
Any job that is left after our machine overlords take over. There will be still need for humans as doctors, kindergardens, well, basically everything where human interaction matters. Also keep the social aspect of work in mind, outside of the simple things like giving your day a structure.

Do you really expect a person with the potentials and skills of a doctor just cashing in his basic income and doing nothing with his life? How about you, is money the only reason you aspire to work?

>the welfare state here
I hope you don't mean the US of A. Though sure, there are some fags abusing the system and wasting their time but the same people are hardly a loss for the economy due their lack of useful skill either way and it would be pretty immoral just to kill them of.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:33:45 2014 No.4873161 >>4873149 The same way welfare works today. It's not very problematic at all.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:35:58 2014 No.4873170

>>4873149
>what would stop prices rising
Nationalization of certain industries that are necessary for basic survival. Though subsidies work well too.
Oh and inb4 nationalization is bad, if you're from UK, you sure can tell how much good the privatization of the Royal Mail did ... well at least for our friends from Goldman Sachs.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:38:12 2014 No.4873179

>>4873153

>Stalin
>bank puppet
>removed bankers from his country

at best allied bankers supported Stalin as a practical move to keep their self preservation, which they dumped right after the war ended

also, it's pretty clear that Hitler himself was just a puppet of the German military-industrial complex that managed to turn into a populist dictator. While Mien Kampf certainly is an important work, I take it about as seriously as Ted Kennedy's autobiography

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:39:02 2014 No.4873183 >>4873153 >Hitler was one of the greatest leaders of European countries ever He was a good talker and could move the masses, sure, but how was any of his policies good? (let's ignore the obvious problems like racism)

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:39:51 2014 No.4873188

>>4873160
So if highly educated people like who can be doctors are really the only people who can have extra income then that's gonna be a pretty tiny proportion of people.

I'm talking about the UK, not the US btw.

>>4873161
Well welfare right now is only for a small percentage of people. If everyone was on it, and most people didn't work then it'd be pretty different.

>>4873170
So everything to do with food, clothing, housing, transport, energy, healthcare etc would need to be nationalised?

We're essentially talking about communism

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:43:06 2014 No.4873202

>>4873179
I completely agree.
Hitler did get oil from SStandard which was owned by the Rothschilds. SStandard was one of two suppliers of oil at the time IIRC. Communism was more of a failure than national socialism.

Also, OP, the Unabomber manifesto is worth reading into. Theodor was right about everything he said, right up until "and thus, we need to blow up a few people".

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:44:34 2014 No.4873215 >>4872848 Thank you for posting this. I've been trying to think of the title of that book.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:45:10 2014 No.4873218

>>4873188
>Well welfare right now is only for a small percentage of people. If everyone was on it, and most people didn't work then it'd be pretty different.
Well, it'll have to be worked out, but surely we'll manage. Remember that the alternative is insurrection and civil war.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:45:42 2014 No.4873222 >>4873183 >racism >problem

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:47:27 2014 No.4873229 >>4873218 I seriously doubt that in Western states(the only places where automatisation is realistic in the nearer future) the governments, and the people who back them, have good enough militaries to stifle pretty much any rebels.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:48:13 2014 No.4873231

>>4873183
>let's ignore the obvious problems like racism
What racism? Please be precise.
The 6 gorillion?

If genocide of ethnic groups is considered racism, Communist Russia was far worse than Nazi Germany. Which kinda makes /lit/ more racist than /pol/, if talking "historical beliefs" if something like that exists.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:49:12 2014 No.4873239 >leader of a european country >politics Yeah, no. Learn economy and depending on what country it is you either get to play around at your will or submit to the germans.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:50:24 2014 No.4873246 >>4873231 >If genocide of ethnic groups is considered racism, Communist Russia was far worse than Nazi Germany. That is common knowledge. Mao also killed millions but it still doesn't make Hitler any less retarded.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:51:45 2014 No.4873252

>>4873229
I doubt it as well, but that's not what you meant to say I think.

Don't forget militaries are mostly made up out of plebs. Don't expect them to kill their laid off truckdriver and mailman cousins.

But hey, it's all in the game as far as I'm concerned. If the rich manage to kill of all the superfluous plebs so that they don't have to bother with them (after which there will be internal conflict et cetera ad infinitum of course with new classes among the rich themselves) then they should. Chances are they wouldn't succeed at that though. The prudent thing to do is to prevent all out class warfare, especially if you're a bougie.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:51:45 2014 No.4873253 >>4873239 >The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. — Thomas Sowell

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:52:53 2014 No.4873261

>>4873188
The thing about basic income is that it is basic, for everybody. My point was that just because there is basic income, people with skills won't suddenly just drop their job and live the life of the current welfare queens who just cash on welfare and basically just exist, but they are mostly irrelevant for the rest of us anyway.

> food, clothing, housing, transport, energy, healthcare etc would need to be nationalised?
>We're essentially talking about communism
Wouldn't say that. They don't even have to be fully nationalized. Let's take Germany as an example, who are still pretty capitalistic.

Their health care is under state control. (but there are private options).
Transportation is partially in state control (the state owns the most shares)
similarly with energy, though with more freedom for the industry.
there are flats provided by the state aswell
and given how much cash EU puts in the agricultural sector, it's not a far call from it.
So only clothing is completely decided by the market.

And of course all the fancy stuff people want, so nationalization of the vital industries, doesn't have to kill off the free market, it just limits it to the things that are more of a "want" than "need". Besides, with basic income, there is no need for minimum wage, so it benefits entrepreneurs too. One could also loosen up the contract protection of workers, since they wouldn't depend on jobs too much.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:53:54 2014 No.4873266

>>4873153
>Hitler was one of the greatest leaders ever

Sure he did some nice things. But he can hardly be called a great leader. The men single handedly ushered in the destruction of the German state.

Sure his economic policies were astounding aswell as his abillity to unify the german people in unison. But he still sucks regardless

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:55:02 2014 No.4873270 >>4873246 IMHO Hitler took more care of his own people than Mao or Stalin did. I don't think Hitler was retarded, I just think he shouldn't be ignored when talking leadership and European history just because they were the "bad guys".

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:55:44 2014 No.4873277

>>4873231
Just because Stalin and Mao did it doesn't make it any less bad.

I can imagine the problems Germany had with the Jews. But killing alot of them off doesn't seem all too wise imo. Granting them a state however seems more logical; like the plan to deport them to Madagascar

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:56:56 2014 No.4873281 >>4873202 iirc IG Farben traded with American jews. So much for your own people

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:57:52 2014 No.4873286 >>4873266 He couldn't outjew the jews, I'll give you that.

Anonymous Fri May 9 17:57:56 2014 No.4873287

>>4873270
He pretty much fucked up Germany, how exactly did he take care of his people? Invading other countries and stealing their shit is not a policy that would work in the long run. Their whole economy was build on war. Even USA learned that sometimes you need more subtle methods.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 17:58:42 2014 No.4873290 >>4873277 >you will never witness Ashkenazi Madagascar Can you imagine how it would thrive without all the shit Israel comes included with?

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:00:01 2014 No.4873294

>>4873252

Yeah, I lost my thought half way through the sentence and forgot to edit it, sorry.

I just can't imagine the rich people, who at this point have little need for a workforce, to pay for their upkeep just so that they don't moan. Getting rid of them seems a more likely option, or actually, never letting automatisation actually becoming a thing seems most certain.

>>4873261
Yeah I know how it works, and I get that this would just subsidise stuff, but my point was that the basic income would have to be constantly changed to reflect prices, unless you propose changing the prices to make things affordable for those on the handout incomes, which would be pretty artificial.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 18:03:12 2014 No.4873305 >>4873287 I meant to say that German families got food on the table even if little. They didn't kill their own people. But basically you are right, he is responsible for leading lots of Germans to death.

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:04:01 2014 No.4873309

>>4873294
I think you severely underestimate the ability of the masses to start some shit, especially when they get really mad. Most rich people don't underestimate this ability though, that's why they're quite careful. The worst thing you can do as someone with a lot to lose is piss off the mobs.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 18:04:20 2014 No.4873311 >>4873261 I'd argue minimum wage would still be necessary to prevent the government subsidizing wages employers should be paying.

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:07:27 2014 No.4873318

>>4873309
We're not living in the 18th Century.
The most that people these days could do is run around and smash up some shops.

They don't have access to weapons(unless they're americans) and the professional army, which is loyal to who pays them, is able to withstand pretty much any civilians attacking it.

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:08:07 2014 No.4873323

>>4873294
Fair point, though welfare gets adjusted to prices too, it's not like they fluctuate too much in a halfway decent economy.

>never letting automatisation actually becoming a thing seems most certain.
Sounds like the most likely outcome, at least for now. I doubt it's something that can be suppressed anymore, it's just a question of how much time they can buy before it happens.

>>4873305
That's true, so I suppose he did take care of his own people (bit) better than Stalin, though the latter did provide for a part of his population too, just the other part like Ukraine payed for it. (wouldn't bring Mao into this, given where China started and how many people they had even at that point)

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:13:28 2014 No.4873342

>>4873323
Yep the welfare gets adjusted now as well but it's based mostly on what a minimum wage of people who work for their money is.

If it would form the basis of every single persons income, and the entirety of a large amount of people's income, then it'd work completely differently I think. I'd have to be adjusted a lot more frequently, and set to some kind of index

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 18:15:52 2014 No.4873348 >>4873287 >their entire economy was built on war not really

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:20:21 2014 No.4873363

>>4873318
>The most that people these days could do is run around and smash up some shops.
And bomb shit, and rob and kill people, and burn down cities etc etc.

>They don't have access to weapons(unless they're americans)
If you frequent lumpenprole circles you can pretty much get your hands on an AK as quickly as you can order The Revolutionary Catechism off of Amazon.

>and the professional army, which is loyal to who pays them
Highly doubtful. Most soldiers have great problems with killing their own people.

>is able to withstand pretty much any civilians attacking it.
It's pretty hard to withstand people with nothing to lose, even if you have technological benefits. But this is all highly hypothetical and silly, no upper class in its right mind would seek to do away with everyone below it because why risk everything when you can have a docile, pleasantly entertained body of plebs?

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:20:25 2014 No.4873364

>>4873311
Would they even need to do it in the first place? If work truly becomes a free decision thanks to basic incomes, employers would need to pay wages that offer some kind of initiative for the people who want to work for other reasons but to do something with their time.

>>4873342
Perhaps. Not sure, can't remember any study addressing this issue and feeling too tired to think right now.

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:27:24 2014 No.4873382

>>4873363
They'd be bombing and burning their own cities, the truly rich people could easily avoid all this and just watch them all kill each other.

The army can be quite easily made to be loyal to the people in power, just find some reason for them to kill the plebs. Look at Syria.

And they should do away with them because they're no longer needed. They're the waste of space and resources. Not trying to say I'm better than them, I'd probably be done away with too, but I still agree with it.

>>4873364
Apparently, the thing that would make employment attractive is the enjoyment of doing something. And wanting to live better than the minimum needed.

Although in this scenario I doubt that you could ever achieve a balance where the minimum income actually hits the "only necessities" line since a lot of people simply couldn't get employment due to lack of skills and so would rely on this for all their life's needs.

and

Okay, thanks for the discussion though.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 18:30:31 2014 No.4873392 >>4873382 To you too, Anon. Civil talk about politics and economics is sure refreshing.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 18:34:52 2014 No.4873403 File: 48 KB, 320x240, mello death note.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4872923 >dat filename >meelo, not mello

Anonymous Fri May 9 18:48:40 2014 No.4873428

>>4873382
>They'd be bombing and burning their own cities, the truly rich people could easily avoid all this and just watch them all kill each other.
I'd say they couldn't, it's quite easy to locate and kill rich people. All those trinkets they gather hardly allow for a low profile.

>The army can be quite easily made to be loyal to the people in power, just find some reason for them to kill the plebs. Look at Syria.
Syria is hardly a simple rich vs poor people war, there are a lot of other ideological forces and interests at stake there. I don't think that's a good example.

>And they should do away with them because they're no longer needed. They're the waste of space and resources. Not trying to say I'm better than them, I'd probably be done away with too, but I still agree with it.
Well I'm not one to get moralistic about it either, I guess our main difference here is what we consider in the best interests of the rich and if your solution is a possibility, but going further into this would just result into a kind of discussion not unlike arguing about football. I'd maintain a Brave New World type of docile bleb thing would be the way to go for the powers that be.

Speaking in terms of probability, I don't think a violent class war will be instigated by either side. But honestly, serious predictions about future events taking into account technological developments and other variables is problematic to the degree of impossibility.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sat May 10 01:58:10 2014 No.4874744
File: 36 KB, 332x500, Arendt - Crisis of the Republic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4872753
Crisis of the Republic - Hannah Arendt
A History of Civilization - Fernand Braudel
Garibaldi | Invention of a Hero - Lucy Rial
Government in the Future - Noam Chomsky
What Then Must We Do - Gar Alperovitz
Das Kapital - Marx

Oh others

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 02:04:37 2014 No.4874753 Harry Potter

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 02:07:37 2014 No.4874757 >>4874744 >A History of Civilization - Fernand Braudel Why haven't you realized yet that World History is bunk?

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sat May 10 02:28:23 2014 No.4874773

>>4874757
A spook?

That's the same as saying literature and reading itself is a bunk/spook

I'm still pleased to learn it, and lately I've been entertaining thoughts of turning it all into research for a fictional piece (That will probably never be written) about a historian

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 10:57:33 2014 No.4875473 >>4874773 >That's the same as saying literature and reading itself is a bunk/spook It isn't. A fictional narrative pretends not to be anything but that, while a grand historical narrative is pretentious far beyond its capability.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 11:07:38 2014 No.4875498 >>4872753 A European country in 15 years, you say? I suggest reading the Qur'an.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sat May 10 11:13:03 2014 No.4875520

>>4875473
Though I've known to never take it for granted as 100% truth, I'll never philosophically peel away history as something false. The truths to be found among these facts are just as good as the truths to be found among the fictions of literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 11:53:42 2014 No.4875705 >>4872862 nah cause op will need those skills in twenty years

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 12:02:59 2014 No.4875742 >>4872862 Not how I interpreted it. I thought it was about the end of civilisation and the need for post-apocalyptic survival skills.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 12:24:00 2014 No.4875821 >>4875498 /pol/, please. Leave.

Anonymous Sat May 10 16:06:15 2014 No.4876693

european leader you say ?

I'd suggest;
How to be good goy and suck Israel's cock by Mordecai Ben cohen of van wer swartch

How to properly hold the USA's president's shit in your hand

How to enjoy being daily anally raped by the international banks and thank them

and finally how to raise racism in a nation to put away the attention from real issues.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:22:55 2014 No.4876733 read this

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:23:42 2014 No.4876735 >>4876733 got it

>>	But Not that guy Sat May 10 16:24:55 2014 No.4876741 >>4875821 Shut the fuck up faggot. There is a point where this needs to end and you perpetually assblasted retards have clearly passed it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:26:29 2014 No.4876743 >>4876733 ---> >>4876660

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:26:42 2014 No.4876745 >>4876741 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Sat May 10 16:35:25 2014 No.4876765

I'm just gonna jump into this recommendation thread and ask my fellow euroboos in here where you buy your books? I've used Amazon in the past, but they've gotten more and more expensive, and recently they started charging and insane rate for delivery to my country,

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:39:44 2014 No.4876774 >>4876741 Do you know why /pol/ should stay here >>>/pol/ ? Because these niggas don't read. And even if they do, they are just reading what fits their worldview.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:42:03 2014 No.4876783 >>4876765 ebooks, hipster faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:43:14 2014 No.4876788 >>4876783 I prefer physical.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:46:45 2014 No.4876798 >>4876788 I'll give you physical (slamming your asshole with my physical penis). Now fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:48:29 2014 No.4876802 >>4876783 >>4876798 Is there anyone besides this autist that wanna share where they buy books in the EU?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 16:57:22 2014 No.4876826 >>4876802 local bookstore?

Anonymous Sat May 10 17:01:23 2014 No.4876836

>>4876774
>Le xD

Retard look at the thread you are in. And I'm reading Mason & Dixon and If on a winter's night a traveler, so fite me irl you fucking commie faggot.

You just don't want to see opinions you don't like. If you truly cared about the board quality and adhesion to the topic, tell the four-dozen marxist threads created every day to fuck off. You are just crying about words you don't like because you are a magnificent winged faggot and thought coming to 4chan was a great idea despite being constructed of sugar and cellophane.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 17:04:00 2014 No.4876839 Tao Te Ching.

Anonymous Sat May 10 17:22:03 2014 No.4876891

>>4872923
>ussr
>marxist
>ending world war 2
pick one, the ussr's land strategy was literally sending your soldiers directly into machinegun fire until the germans had to reload, theres a reason the ussr lost the most soldiers with the least amount of actual battles, and furthermore by the time the soviets pushed the germans out of occupied ussr land the usa and uk were fighting germans on their own native land

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 17:28:39 2014 No.4876914 >>4872898 > Marx's works essentially ruined half of Europe. Are you implying that Eastern Europa was somehow better off before Soviet Union took them over in a completely anti-Marxist manner?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 17:31:49 2014 No.4876928 >>4876891 > soviets pushed the germans out of occupied ussr land the usa and uk were fighting germans on their own native land Battle of Aachen and Battle of Memel were fought simultaneously though

Anonymous Sat May 10 17:39:14 2014 No.4876953

>>4876891
>heres a reason the ussr lost the most soldiers with the least amount of actual battles
Like fighting the majority of the Nazi army? The west frost was a joke compared to the east. Do something about that American propaganda ... err education, mate.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 17:41:25 2014 No.4876962 >>4876891 http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22t8dg/did_the_soviet_union_really_use_human_wave/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 17:46:25 2014 No.4876977 >>4876836 >And I'm reading Mason & Dixon and If on a winter's night a traveler, so fite me irl you fucking commie faggot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI

Anonymous Sat May 10 17:48:39 2014 No.4876988

>>4876953
>Implying im american
Germany could have easily defeated the USSR if it wasnt for the west fighting them on the western and african fronts, they had better technology and the red army was a joke in its methods to counter germany's heavy armor ie their bomb dogs turning on their own tanks due to the people in charge of that operation not considering that german tanks may not run on diesel fuel and give off a different scent than their own tanks just as an example of who would be in charge of fighting germany without the allies, also lets not forget germany occupied where a lot of the ussr's industry was based during operation barborossa which they had to move to siberia after that, im not saying what the ussr did wasnt crucial, im saying they couldnt have done it without the allies simaltaniously fighting the germans

>>4876962
Im sorry I should have said done instead of were ordered to but that doesnt change the fact that they still did do the human wave even if they were not ordered to or it was not part of any battle plans, and also not everyone who disagrees with you is a /pol/ack or has any less of a right to use the literature board to discuss history as you do :)

Anonymous Sat May 10 17:56:07 2014 No.4877001

>>4876988
>Germany could have easily defeated the USSR if it wasnt for the west fighting them on the western and african fronts, they had better technology and the red army was a joke

If with better technology you mean over-engineering the snot out of your equipment I guess you're right.

>However, for all its formidable weaponry, the Tiger had its problems – and one of these centred on the tracks. During the winter, mud and snow would pack into the tracks and freeze up, thus jamming the tracks. When the Russians realised this, they timed their attacks for the early morning before the snow/mud could thaw out.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tiger_tank.htm

Anonymous Sat May 10 17:57:28 2014 No.4877006

>>4876988
You don't need to be American to buy their propaganda, that was taught through the West, Anon.

The organization, shitty tactics and technology problems got better over time, and you mentioned yourself that they moved their industry. It was almost impossible for the USSR to lose given their amount of people, resources and land. Even if Germany would've taken Stalingrad, they still could move further and further to the East, while the approaching nazi army would grow weaker and weaker and have more problems with supplies and climate.

Do you even realize how much more people were fighting on the eastern front? Germany barely had any troops left for the west.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 17:58:29 2014 No.4877010 >>4876988 Well, are you /pol/ or aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 17:59:00 2014 No.4877011 >>4874744 >Leader of an European country >marxist literature no1 will take you serious, and rightfully so

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:00:30 2014 No.4877015 >>4877010 Fuck no its like /b/ just with more news articles and half as much cuckhold porn, /new/ was way better for actual news

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:02:13 2014 No.4877020 >>4877011 Wonder why Europe and maybe Australia are the only places that care about workers welfare then.

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:02:37 2014 No.4877022

The Wealth of Nations.
Society and Intellectuals, Basic Economics.
Atlas Shrugged.
Why Government is the Problem, The Tyranny of the Status Quo and Capitalism and Freedom.
Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature, Man, Economy and the State, The Case Against the Fed and An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:03:00 2014 No.4877025

>>4876988
Germany pretty much lost the war by 1941.
They had to play catchup after that.
You're also heavily underestimating the might of the T-34's and overestimating the prowess of the Tiger tanks who for all their exceptional qualities were immobile as fuck.

Hitler was fkn stupid thinking he could invade Russia and continue his campaign throughout Russian winter. In such cases, Clausewitz's principle of the defender's advantage is just applied especially in WW2.

There was absolutely no way that Germany was going to win after the loss at the Battle of Britain and Hitler still ruling his autocratic government

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:03:53 2014 No.4877027 >>4877015 Fair enough. Apologies.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:04:01 2014 No.4877028 >>4877010 Holy shit are you one hell of a faggot. Which shitty other -website- are YOU from, idiot?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:04:09 2014 No.4877029 >>4877022 nice b8 m8

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:04:24 2014 No.4877030 >>4877022 >putting The Wealth of Nations in there. You're a funny one and obviously haven't read it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:06:23 2014 No.4877038 >>4877028 I'm from tumblr, I just love to blog.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:08:39 2014 No.4877047 >>4877028 >whaaa whaaa >>4877038 too obvious.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:11:20 2014 No.4877060 >>4877047 You're actually crying because it's that obvious how you're just an idiot from somewhere else who gets offended? Wow. That's rough, tiger.

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:14:13 2014 No.4877070

>>4877029

Not one of those books aside from Wealth of Nations and Atlas Shrugged have ever had any valid criticisms rallied against them, The Wealth of Nations because it is not purely about Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged because it is fictional. Anarcho-Capitalism and Capitalism do not have ANY valid criticisms.

>>4877030

Its important to get a historic perspective on the infancy of Capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:15:08 2014 No.4877074 >>4877060 Not even mad. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:16:36 2014 No.4877077 >>4877074 Reply to me faggot

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:19:19 2014 No.4877087

>>4877070
>Anarcho-Capitalism and Capitalism do not have ANY valid criticisms.

Thats a bold statement. And if i mane one like, eh, Marx? You'll just call it invalid for purely ideological reasons, right? I think only religion have had more valid criticisms than capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:20:33 2014 No.4877092 >>4877087 Free market will fix it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:20:56 2014 No.4877094 >>4872753 Avlosning by Tor Ulven. Learn how perception is created trough the framework of a (very special) novel

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:25:07 2014 No.4877118

>>4877070
I highly doubt it. All that free market talk is basically the economics equivalent to robo jesus and the singularity folks. Criticism isn't possible because the ideology is a closed system and every argument against it is shut down by no true scotsman fallacies. Like there hasn't been a truly free market yet and so on.

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:25:09 2014 No.4877119

>>4877087

Marx was a moaning cunt who whined that Capitalism causes exploitation. First, every single factory worker aide from orphans were there voluntarily because it was a better life than cutting grain for 18 hours a day. Second, the issue of child labor is an issue of Capitalism. Child labor has been practiced throughout ALL of history. Its only because of the wealth Capitalism gave us that even we stopped to think about children. I never saw the peasants revolting because their children had to work. Also, Anarcho-Capitalism forbid enforced child labor, like that which was supported BY THE STATE in 19th century Britain. Forcing anyone to do something is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:26:20 2014 No.4877125 >>4877077 Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:27:21 2014 No.4877131 I just leave this here: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract?rss=1

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:27:28 2014 No.4877132 >>4877119 >Marx was a moaning cunt who whined that Capitalism causes exploitation. Stopped reading there, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:29:02 2014 No.4877138 >>4877119 Why don't you go back to /pol/ and parrot your fallacies and strawmen there? There are reasonable libertarianfags, you aren't one of them.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:29:07 2014 No.4877140 >>4877125 >Can't not reply when he's been quoted >Take ten minutes to post this >"I'm not even mad" Overkek

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:29:57 2014 No.4877143 >>4877119 >First, every single factory worker aide from orphans were there voluntarily because it was a better life than cutting grain for 18 hours a day What is economic and social pressure? What is migration into cities? What is overpopulation?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:30:25 2014 No.4877148 >>4877143 Free market will fix it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:30:48 2014 No.4877150 >>4877119 >Marx [said] that Capitalism causes exploitation. Indeed, and he was right.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:31:00 2014 No.4877152 >>4877140 Still not feeling it. Try again.

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:31:25 2014 No.4877156

>>4877132

That' pretty much the entire Communist argument in one line. 100 Million people died because this disgusting lie, and you have the gall to insult the system that gave us everything. Its despicable.

>>4877138

Still not hearing an argument. Also, the majority of /pol/ is socialist.

>>4877143

Nothing compared to cutting grass 18 hours per day obviously, you fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:32:42 2014 No.4877164 >>4877156 You have to try a bit more if you want an argument, then again, we both know that you don't.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:33:03 2014 No.4877165 >>4877152 Can you literally not avoid replying when you are quoted? Newfags are pathetic. Have fun being a butthurt retard on the 4chinz man, see you around.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:33:53 2014 No.4877172 >>4877164 So basically, you don't have an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:34:41 2014 No.4877177 >>4872807 The Road To Serfdom.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:35:02 2014 No.4877181 >>4877172 >why don't you reply to my shitposting Come on, post a single non retarded statement.

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:35:20 2014 No.4877185

>>4877143
Also I might add that the invention of mechanised loom for example made many people unemployed and kinda desperate. If technology makes you obsolete you might find yourself ending up as a low skilled worker. That isn't really a choice I think but a matter of survival.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:35:31 2014 No.4877186 >>4877164 >I have nothing to really say but I'm sure as hell gonna posture >Gib me dats plox Leftists in a nutshell

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:35:55 2014 No.4877188

>>4877156
>100 Million people died because this disgusting lie

That i stopped reading your bile of regurgitated bullshit from any comment section on YouTube? Do you have evidence that I caused 100 million deaths by not wanting to read?

Also now I've read it. You are historically oblivious and insanely naive.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:36:26 2014 No.4877191 >>4877165 Almost, but not really. Nice touch with the newfag though.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:36:43 2014 No.4877192 >>4877186 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:37:25 2014 No.4877196

>>4877119
> First, every single factory worker aide from orphans were there voluntarily because it was a better life than cutting grain for 18 hours a day.
Average workhours in Agrarian societies before industrialization ranged between 12 and 24 hours a week depending on season and region.

Only with industrialization did it become possible to work 12-16 hours a day.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:37:54 2014 No.4877199 File: 67 KB, 480x600, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877191

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:38:07 2014 No.4877202

>>4877181

Its funny you say that despite your posts not containing one shred of content. Fucking pathetic, seriously, why even waste your time.

>>4877188

Did I say you caused 100 million deaths? I can tell you don't want to read mate. Still not hearing those damning arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:38:40 2014 No.4877208 >>4877196 No! You cut down the grain everyday we all know it grows over night!

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:38:43 2014 No.4877209 >>4877199 tips fedora

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:39:34 2014 No.4877214

>>4877070
> That' pretty much the entire Communist argument in one line. 100 Million people died because this disgusting lie, and you have the gall to insult the system that gave us everything. Its despicable.
And because of Maos more effective social and agricultural policies China's population grew by 140% (Compare to 10% it did during Kai-Shek regime) in thirty six years even with all these disgusting lies and whatever. Yet you forget it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:40:05 2014 No.4877216 >>4877202 >your posts not containing one shred of content. The irony must be lost on you. Then again, I doubt you can truly be this retarded, so let's just conclude that it's trolling, mate.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:40:46 2014 No.4877220 File: 8 KB, 175x149, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877209

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:41:15 2014 No.4877221 >>4877208 Yeah, I'm mowing my lawn for 18 hours a day. Don't you?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:41:23 2014 No.4877223 >>4877202 >Did I say you caused 100 million deaths >That' pretty much the entire Communist argument in one line. You said my 'lie' which wasn't a lie since I stopped reading at the time was the lie that caused 100 millions deaths somehow?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:41:49 2014 No.4877225 >>4877214 >Modern China is actually a great place to live, I would move there today ~You being retarded, 2014

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:42:17 2014 No.4877228 >>4877220 Come on. Pls do another flame.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:42:36 2014 No.4877229 >>4877221 Isn't that the only way to live? How would i get food if i didn't mow my lawn every day?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:42:51 2014 No.4877230 Read nothing. Write your own tracts. Forge the modern world in your image. Rule.

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:43:01 2014 No.4877232

>>4877156
> That' pretty much the entire Communist argument in one line.
No, its really not.
> 100 Million people died because this disgusting lie
Hundreds of millions of people died because of malnutrition, not because of Karl Marx.
> you have the gall to insult the system that gave us everything
The system gave the bourgeoise a tool to manipulate the masses by offering them trinkets of their own produced goods and nurturing them to believe that it is a great system.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:43:10 2014 No.4877233 File: 79 KB, 600x533, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877228

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:44:30 2014 No.4877240 >>4877225 Modern China is closer to Chiang Kai-Sheks vision of bourgeois dictatorship than Maos agrarian workers state. Anyways, yes, I could live in modern China: hell, I could even live in 60s China.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:44:37 2014 No.4877241 >>4877232 The masses were manipulated by their repulsive animal nature, not the bourgeois.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:45:32 2014 No.4877245 >>4877241 > You see! The sheeple deserved to be exploited!

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:45:40 2014 No.4877249 File: 311 KB, 800x751, 1367854670375.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877233

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:46:40 2014 No.4877250 File: 17 KB, 227x239, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877249

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:47:43 2014 No.4877257 >>4877245 Well ideally they would be educated and dissuaded from consuming the garbage that is modern culture but the socialists apparently don't want that to happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:48:00 2014 No.4877261 File: 58 KB, 550x550, 1384963334750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877250

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:48:47 2014 No.4877267 >>4877241 Their animal nature to work 10-12 hours at an assembly line? Are you high?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:48:56 2014 No.4877268 File: 108 KB, 560x828, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877261

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:50:00 2014 No.4877272 >>4877257 I'm sorry, can you perhaps rephrase that argument?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:50:51 2014 No.4877276 File: 23 KB, 400x339, 1379118292510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877268

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:50:59 2014 No.4877277 >>4877257 >Capitalism is the best system except from what it produces, the output Tell us how evil government regulation is causing this garbage output.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:53:51 2014 No.4877281 >>4877277 I'm sure without regulation companies would make an effort to limit garbage because the environmentally correct disposal costs a lot of money. Hence libertarianism is eco friendly.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:54:13 2014 No.4877283 File: 92 KB, 639x803, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877276

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:55:02 2014 No.4877288 File: 28 KB, 394x391, 1381101941234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this thread

Anonymous Sat May 10 18:55:39 2014 No.4877294

>>4877196

I notice you say "agrarian" and not "agricultural". Yes, hunter-gathers worked 12-24 hours per week, agricultural work was fucking horrible when it came about. Back breaking work for very little pay off.

>>4877214

Population doesn't mean shit. 60 million people in China have been raised out of poverty since China's decentralization of agriculture in the 1970's.

>>4877223

I really don't understand what you're saying. I never said you caused 100 Million deaths, I said Communists and lying mantras did.

>>4877232

Yes, it really is. Hundreds of millions of people did not because of Marx no, they died because of Marx's ideas.

>bourgeoisie

Let me tell you about the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are not people who own property and use said property to produce for the rest of us. At no point are you ever forced to work to them. The bourgeoisie are these fucking terrorists we call "the state". Don't want to fund Afghan children being bombed? Too bad, pay your taxes or rot in a cage. Don't support theft of our children via inflation by the federal reserved? Too fucking bad, the state will borrow more money whether you like or not. Don't want to pay for Trayvon and his 70 kids and think there's a better way to do things? Too bad, pay your taxes or rot in a cage. Don't support the drug war and throwing someone in prison for burning a fucking plant and inhaling it? Too bad, you're next if you don't pay. That's oppression, not a group of people who are voluntary transforming resources and trading them others.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:56:10 2014 No.4877296 File: 40 KB, 600x402, 1380190034327.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877283

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 18:57:09 2014 No.4877302 File: 122 KB, 584x438, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877296

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:00:22 2014 No.4877314

>>4877294
>agricultural work was fucking horrible when it came about
Which was a bit "earlier". Agricultural work before Industrialization was chill.

>Communism caused 100 Million deaths
It walked around and killed people? Boy, this communism guy is sure evil.

As for the evil state bitching, you can vote. If you vote for parties that support bombing Afghan children, it is what you get.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:02:46 2014 No.4877318 >>4877294 >for very little pay off. Pay off wasn't the point, food on the table and survival was.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:03:08 2014 No.4877319

>>4877294
Truth is it wasn't really work, it was their lifestyle and there was no distinction between free time and earning a living. It's not like they time stamped a punch card every morning and then walked through the forest for 8 hours. Our work ethos is a fairly new invention. There's even a study on remote farmers who don't distinct between work and free-time. If you would ask them what they would do if they didn't need to milk cows and whatnot they'd tell you they would do the same. Milk fucking cows, tell stories and so on.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:04:14 2014 No.4877324 File: 93 KB, 500x750, 1376356077313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877302 You tried. Next time maybe.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:04:59 2014 No.4877325

>>4877294
> I notice you say "agrarian" and not "agricultural". Yes, hunter-gathers worked 12-24 hours per week, agricultural work was fucking horrible when it came about. Back breaking work for very little pay off.
Is this meant to be an argument for 40-70 hour work week in 19th century factories?
> Population doesn't mean shit. 60 million people in China have been raised out of poverty since China's decentralization of agriculture in the 1970's.
Then why talk of a hundred million "casualties" of "marxism"?
> Yes, it really is. Hundreds of millions of people did not because of Marx no, they died because of Marx's ideas.
Can you prove this strange argument? Which ideas by Marx killed how many people? What passages of Das Kapital are the most dangerous ones?
> The bourgeoisie are not people who own property and use said property to produce for the rest of us.
Ahem, while the picture of the bourgeoise being the leading producer of products in the society is a very romantic one, usually it is taken into account that the bourgeoise own the tools of production, but the ones who actually produce the goods are proletariat.
> The bourgeoisie are these fucking terrorists we call "the state".
It sort of depends on the time period and state we talk of.

> state complaints
thats all very nice, but why throw a tantrum about state taking "your money" back as taxes, when all of the wealth you own is backed and based on the existence of the very same state in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:05:10 2014 No.4877326 File: 51 KB, 399x582, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4877324

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:15:14 2014 No.4877378 >>4877281 environmentally incorrect disposal is cheaper, hence they lobby for deregulation.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:17:27 2014 No.4877389

>>4877314

>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110615094514.htm

"when populations around the globe started turning to agriculture around 10,000 years ago, regardless of their locations and type of crops, a similar trend occurred: The height and health of the people declined."

"She adds that growth in population density spurred by agriculture settlements led to an increase in infectious diseases"

>The World Until Yesterday (Jared Diamond)

"the costs of agriculture were: "the average daily number of work hours increased, nutrition deteriorated, infectious disease and body wear increased, and lifespan shortened."

Sounds pretty "chill".

>>4877318

You could get that by hunting and gathering. Stating in one place was the point.

>>4877319

That still doesn't invalidate capitalism. Many of the workers both in the industrial revolution and in modern day sweatshops were and are saving to better their position in life.

>>4877325

Not an argument "for", but an argument that the Communist critique that this is down to Capitalism is bogus.

>Then why talk of a hundred million "casualties" of "marxism"?

What I meant was "population rise" doesn't mean shit, African's have a high population and birthrate, doesn't mean they have a good society. Populations obviously matter when you're talking about the number of people killed.

Marx didn't kill anyone. Marx didn't force Mao to be Communist, Mao chose to be. But Communism as a concept is the root cause of those deaths.

The bourgeoisie do produce. CEO's produce. Bankers produce. The people who don't produce are patent and license holders, who are given a monopoly by, surprise, the state.

No, states have always been terrorists. The use violence and intimidation to force the population to support them. Otherwise, they'd be called "charities".

My wealth is not backed by the state, what a retarded implication. The state was stealing from you in the form of unfunded liabilities and inflation since way before you were even born. Who says they're based on the state? I'd say the state is a parasite class we would only benefit from exorcising.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:18:44 2014 No.4877394

>>4877325
>It sort of depends on the time period and state we talk of.
I hope you realized at this point in your reply that you are just being the classic sarcastic marxist retard who doesn't actually have a point except "LOL NOOOO". Please kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:19:00 2014 No.4877397 >>4877378 Nah uh, free market will fix everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:20:05 2014 No.4877401 >>4877389 >around 10,000 years ago There were clearly no improvements later.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:21:22 2014 No.4877405 >>4877389 > My wealth is not backed by the state, what a retarded implication. Then what is it backed by if not social contracts?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:21:51 2014 No.4877408 >>4873231 >If genocide of ethnic groups is considered racism, Communist Russia was far worse than Nazi Germany. Do you have up-to-date sources on this, or is it just you borrowing from Krouchtchev's attempt at blaming everything on Staline ?

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:23:36 2014 No.4877413

>>4877405
That isn't the state, and the state's size and growth are sickening. It's amusing you talk of oppression and theft of labor or whatever but capitalists aren't going to throw you in prison or beat you into the ground with a baton or prevent you from putting a chemical into your body.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:24:59 2014 No.4877416

>>4877389
>No, states have always been terrorists. The use violence and intimidation to force the population to support them.

Just like you wish to do with your 'non-aggression' principle that is a wildcard for corporations to wage actual war against businesses trying to 'steal' their market share or people protesting their working conditions and 'damaging property'.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:25:21 2014 No.4877417

>>4877413
> That isn't the state
State is not a social contract?
> It's amusing you talk of oppression and theft of labor or whatever but capitalists aren't going to throw you in prison or beat you into the ground with a baton or prevent you from putting a chemical into your body.
What are you trying to say here?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:26:29 2014 No.4877421 >>4877417 >State is not a social contract? top kek

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:26:52 2014 No.4877424 >>4872753 In about 15 years, there will be no countries, nor leaders. Better read comic books.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:27:39 2014 No.4877425 >>4877417 >X=Y therefore, X is Z Kill yourself >What are u le talking about xD Your retarded ideology, and you know that, sport.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:30:11 2014 No.4877435

>>4877401

That's because efficiency never rose. It has now, and would've happened even without government intervention. The fact is if a job needs to be done, it needs to be done, no matter how long it takes. Of course, if you find something deplorable in capitalism, like working hours or unhealthy conditions, all you need to do is withdraw support, either by not purchasing from that chain or not working for them. With the state, you have no such choice. You don't "have" to work 16 hours, and if you think no-one else wants to either, start your own chain and the workers should come flooding in.

>>4877405

Social contracts are not the state. They don't need the state to exist. As I just said the state's "social contracts" mean jack shit when compared to the money the government has promised to people but can't pay back (such as pensions) and so they fob off the debt to future generations, or the money they stole through inflation.

>>4877416

Corporations won't exist in anarchy, a "corporation" is a state smokescreen to absolve individuals of liability. If people are abiding by the non-aggression principle, naturally individuals will not be waging war against each other. Also, war is an expensive and inefficient activity. Why do you think the government has to force people to pay for it? Do you really think I would pay for the War in Iraq if I had the option, or even anyone else would?

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:33:00 2014 No.4877448

>>4877435
> Social contracts are not the state.
What is state if not a social contract between people and what is property is not a social contract between people on allocating the resources the state controls? Some Hegelian Geist?

> As I just said the state's "social contracts" mean jack shit when compared to the money the government has promised to people but can't pay back (such as pensions) and so they fob off the debt to future generations, or the money they stole through inflation.
Oh I'm sorry, you're an American, incapable of critical examination of capitalist system inherently.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:36:19 2014 No.4877460

>>4877435
>"corporation" is a state smokescreen to absolve individuals of liability.

Corporations is the ultimate capitalist expression: a store with political power over people.

>all you need to do is withdraw support

That's a bit naive, we know so much shit about the deplorable working conditions of so many brands and still we by from social pressure and status. You are a moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:37:39 2014 No.4877464 >>4877435 >Why do you think the government has to force people to pay for it? Because it's good business.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:37:49 2014 No.4877466 Wow, you probably won't believe this, but OP here. I'm surprised this thread is still up, I haven't looked on lit since last night. Man this is a slow board

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:40:19 2014 No.4877478 File: 96 KB, 1800x2700, ChicagoManualOfStyle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4872753 >an European >an Start with pic related

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:44:33 2014 No.4877507

>>4877448

The state is group of individuals that attack other people's property. That is the state, that's what the state exist to do.

>>4877460

No, they are not. How can you call a collectivist entity (the state) granting a group of individuals protection from their wrong doings capitalism?

That's not naive in the slightest. Have you ever heard of "boycotting"? The fact is, if people didn't give a shit about deplorable working conditions, they wouldn't band together and advocate better ones. This is true in either democracy or anarchy, the only difference is in anarchy you're not forced to pay for it. They lose money, and so they're being punished for their cruelty.

>>4877464

No, because its bad business. The BBC has to force people to purchase "TV Licenses" because it knows no fucker wants to watch it. Channel 5 doesn't force you pay for their channel, neither does Channel 4. That's because although they're shit, they still provide a better service than the BBC. Whenever the state creates a "tax", its them putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay for something so they don't have to convince you or provide a decent service.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:45:41 2014 No.4877512 >>4877507 >"property" Well well well. Looks like we've got us a shitlord.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:47:04 2014 No.4877516 >>4877507 > people's property So you are positing that property is something that is not governed, backed up, created or distributed by a state but rather a natural phenoma? What exacly is keeping me from stealing your computer?

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:52:32 2014 No.4877540

>>4877512

Yes, I should check my fairness privilege.

>>4877516

No, I am positing that property is a concept backed by individuals honoring it for their mutual benefit.

>What exacly is keeping me from stealing your computer?

Individuals with guns. Who stops the state from stealing my computer? In an anarchist society, you would not steal my computer because you would be recognized as a thief and people would refuse to do business with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:55:01 2014 No.4877552 >>4877540 > Individuals with guns. So arbitrary tyrants. Private property is just as tyrannical and undesirable expression of egoism and aristocracy as the state.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:58:04 2014 No.4877566

>>4877552
>Defense is tyrannical

I want to punch you in the fucking face. Honestly, I really do. I hate leftists so fucking much. You are such sarcastic, no-nothing fucking morons who use emotional bullshit to win over other morons. I fucking hate you so. Fucking. Much.

Anonymous Sat May 10 19:58:38 2014 No.4877567

>>4877507
>granting a group of individuals protection from their wrong doings capitalism?

They also constrain them they lobby to make them only regulate their competitors or import. You're only telling half the story.

>the only difference is in anarchy you're not forced to pay for it.
And you have no institution to enforce anything which you have in a democracy. If you can't afford to protest its worthless in anarchy just look at the poor and their fast food habits.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 19:59:50 2014 No.4877573 >>4877540 >you would not steal my computer because you would be recognized as a thief and people would refuse to do business with you. Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 20:00:07 2014 No.4877576 >>4877566 hes right though, private properties are private tyrannies and thats not a bad thing.

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:02:18 2014 No.4877583

The biggest problem in anarchism is its inability to assert itself, its lack of defense, meaning any foreign centralized militaristic entity could potentially fuck you over. The basis of statehood, territorial assertions, or even revolution is the ability to hold and defend. You used Iraq as an example, a nondefensive war, to highlight that war is unnecessary and inefficient, which isn't the same thing as this very basic assertation. Your solution is to rely on some sort of long-term large-scale cooperation (bordering on statehood), letting small communities and individuals account for themselves (armed population, guerilla) which is arguably not enough against organized threats, some kind of global system (which you wouldn't be able to impose) or the libertarian defense-only state. This is assuming a successful revolution takes place first.

Case in point: Makhnovia, Spanish civil war

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 20:04:45 2014 No.4877591 sinuhe egyptian

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:05:10 2014 No.4877594

>>4877552

I was talking about the state, so yeah, tyrants.

>>4877567

Yeah, that's not capitalism. That's enforced monopoly, created by a non-private group (the state).

That's a good thing. You cannot enforce or make people pay for shit they don't want to. Who are you going to protest against in anarchy? Not being able to pay for something is a protest, individuals naturally want to trade with as many people as possible, if people can't afford their products they're losing money. The poor's fast food habits are caused by subsidization of agriculture.

>>4877573

Because no-one wants to deal with a thief and whatever contract you signed that guarantee's you access to things like water, security, electricity, road-usage ect also said you cannot steal. If you steal, no home, water, electricity or job for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 20:05:36 2014 No.4877596 >>4877566 >want to punch you in the fucking face. Honestly, I really do The real face of 'non aggresion'

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 20:06:45 2014 No.4877598 >>4877594 >Because no-one wants to deal with a thief What if you need the labor of a thief? In anarchism that's ok?

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:11:32 2014 No.4877618

>>4877598

Who would employ a thief? The stat has to actively force companies to employ criminals right now. Also, if your company relies on other contracts, for example investors, land use agreements, usage of water, defense organizations, these groups (especially the defense organizations) will penalize you for dealing with thieves, as its a risk to them.

>>4877596

That wasn't me by the way.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 20:16:04 2014 No.4877638 >>4877596 >Le xD You're doing it again, dearie

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:16:27 2014 No.4877643

>>4877618
Fuck the defenders then, raw power works better than organized crime would be a powerful ally in dealing with competitors, burning down stock and production. It's more efficient than competing fairly for marketshare. Why do you think people generally only accept a state monopoly on violence? Because ideally it's violence works for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 20:16:55 2014 No.4877645 >>4873008 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:17:10 2014 No.4877646

>>4877566
You think it's emotional because you take into account the sinister sentiment commonly associated with these terms.

A private owner holds all authority over his property while being guaranteed by the state through law enforcement and property rights, meaning he gets the last word no matter what - effectively 'authoritarian'. Compare this to "democratic property", where this absolute ruler isn't present.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 20:17:37 2014 No.4877650 >>4877643 Raw power works better than abstract pieces of paper*

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:22:36 2014 No.4877678

>>4877643

No, it doesn't. Without water, electric, dispute resolution, food, access to roads and investment, how the fuck are you going to do anything? Raw power does not work, its a massive waste of time and resources. People accept a state monopoly on violence because they have not lived in or have any concept of a world without government. They have been conditioned by the media (owned by the big government subsidized banks) and the indoctrination camps we call "schools" to love Big Brother. They get told without the state there is no security or way of doing things, despite the fact state are incredibly unstable and insecure. You cannot "know" things if you're never told. In terms of ethics, we're still in the dark ages.

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:33:13 2014 No.4877726

>>4877678
>Without water, electric, dispute resolution, food, access to roads and investment, how the fuck are you going to do anything?

By paying for it. Money rules.

>Raw power does not work, its a massive waste of time and resources.

Someone hasn't looked into the dynamics of black markets. It works pretty well. You seem to be under the impression that anarchy equals 'civility' and that everyone will be white collar workers in a free society.

People accept a state monopoly on violence because they have not lived in or have any concept of a world without government. They have been conditioned by the media (owned by the big government subsidized banks) and the indoctrination camps we call "schools" to love Big Brother.

Most major media outlets are privately owned.

They get told without the state there is no security or way of doing things, despite the fact state are incredibly unstable and insecure. You cannot "know" things if you're never told. In terms of ethics, we're still in the dark ages.

Yeah your ethics which is 'money rules' is surely illuminating.

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:40:11 2014 No.4877743

>>4877726

And then those companies lose their contracts or get bad credit for dealing with unrepeatable people. Their contracts, contacts and credit is more valuable than your money.

Black markets work because state bans certain things, causing them to be worth more than they are. Marijuana isn't worth anything really, its cheap to produce and distribute, but because the government bans it that inflates the price. If it wasn't banned, it wouldn't be a black market product, and "drug dealers" would just become normal companies.

Major media outlets are privately owned, however many of them rely on funding and investment from institutions that are heavily tied with the state or are part of the state.

I never said money rules, ethics and upholding contracts rules. But I would still prefer money rules over violence rules.

Anonymous Sat May 10 20:52:42 2014 No.4877779

>>4877743
>And then those companies lose their contracts or get bad credit for dealing with unrepeatable people. Their contracts, contacts and credit is more valuable than your money.

In the current system yes, but not in a free system the only ones enforcing rules are individuals and the rules they are enforcing are their own, not some abstract business ethos, perhaps you can see collaboration like two crime bosses teaming up or dividing territory. You can of course also compete on violence by having better mercenaries or thugs on your payroll, it creates jobs.

>Black markets work because state bans certain things, causing them to be worth more than they are. Marijuana isn't worth anything really, its cheap to produce and distribute, but because the government bans it that inflates the price. If it wasn't banned, it wouldn't be a black market product, and "drug dealers" would just become normal companies.

Black markets are free markets there's no regulation whatsoever. If a dealer didn't deliver or sell enough or if he invades your market (selling coke to your customers cheap) you can't take it to court, you have to show muscle to make him understand. It's all about manipulating supply and demand to your advantage, that's good business.

>Major media outlets are privately owned, however many of them rely on funding and investment from institutions that are heavily tied with the state or are part of the state.

Again you are only telling half the story.

>I never said money rules, ethics and upholding contracts rules. But I would still prefer money rules over violence rules.

Yeah, you are naive.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:05:54 2014 No.4877828 >>4877779 So you basically want Somalia?

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:07:29 2014 No.4877832

>>4877779

No, it doesn't. Again, if you hire thugs or mercenaries, people won't lend to you, they won't invest in you, they won't provide you with water or dispute resolution services, they won't buy from you. Its not "the current system", even in today's system, companies constantly worry about bad press, because it means people won't invest in them. Investment will be very important. Its still important now, but in today's system the state will often coerce the banks into giving you loans or you can rely on patents to pay for you ventures. People won't really get ludicrously rich in anarchy. These billionaires we have now are not natural, they're that rich because the government will use force on anyone who uses their ideas or products. Look at Bill Gates for example, he'd be nothing if he wasn't a patent troll.

Black markets are not free markets, and there is regulation, since obviously what they're selling is regulated in the first place. Its also regulated by cartels who know they're already breaking the law, and so don't give a single shit about killing people and intimidating them to ensure prices stay high. If it wasn't illegal, you would have people who make contracts with other companies and more engaged with the community, as so they wouldn't kill or harm because people would stop buying from them.

Also, its not good business. Raising the prices of drugs is bad business because people can't afford them and turn to other alternatives. Heroine costs too much, krokadil fills the void. Cocaine costs too much, crack fills the void.

Half of what story? Those are the facts.

I think you are naive. You're still in the stone-age of ethics.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:11:19 2014 No.4877849 The Bible.

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:12:20 2014 No.4877851

>>4877832
> These billionaires we have now are not natural, they're that rich because the government
> regulated by cartels who know they're already breaking the law
> don't give a single shit about killing people and intimidating them to ensure prices stay high
> its not good business. Raising the prices of drugs is bad business
>so they wouldn't kill or harm because people would stop buying from them.

too much kek to hold

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:15:10 2014 No.4877863

>>4877851
I'm not him, but you're an idiot. The head of the FDA is an ex-monsanto president. If tobacco and alcohol companies had their way you'd be able to buy smokes for a buck and a bottle of decent vodka for 5. Do you know what a "sin tax" is, anon? Do you realize the CIA is growing most of the heroin?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:18:13 2014 No.4877874 >>4877863 7/10 for missing the point completely

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:18:59 2014 No.4877877 >>4877874 Are you rating yourself?

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:21:17 2014 No.4877884

>>4877863
>The head of the FDA is an ex-monsanto president.
>getting facts this tangled in your righteous quest

I think you mean Michael Taylor?

>work for Monsanto as a Vice President for Public Policy
>And on January 13, 2010, he was appointed to another newly created post at the FDA, this time as Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

This things are considerably less powerful than you make them out to be.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:21:35 2014 No.4877886 >>4877877 Sometimes. Yet I'd say here it was obvious that the post I quoted was rated. Then again, you seem to have your trouble with the obvious.

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:24:08 2014 No.4877895

>>4877886
You are trying so hard to "win" this but you're just a fucking idiot.
>LOL YOU SAID THESE THINGS THAT ARE SILLY INHERENTLY XD
>He's entirely correct
>BUT YOU DON'T GET IT LEEEEEEL

Goddamn are leftists fucking stupid little drones. You are all -exactly- the same smarmy, braindead faggot.

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:26:27 2014 No.4877898

>>4877884
>Monsanto's PR agent is a high ranking official in the FDA in a "newly created" position
>"Considerably less powerful than you are making them out to be"

You know what we have to go to the bar soon anyway. Lets get fucking wasted.

You're a real faggot, man.

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:28:36 2014 No.4877905

>>4877583
>Makhnovia
Makhno basically won the Russian civil war for the reds by fucking the shit our of the whites and cutting Denkin's supply lines to ribbons. He just couldn't take the Trotsky pain train, which basically no one which Stalin could take (and Stalin was such a hard motherfucker his name literally means 'steel' in Russian)

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:28:59 2014 No.4877906 >>4877895 To win what? I just quoted the obvious fallacies and contradictions and suddenly you go full butthurt on me, come on.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:29:38 2014 No.4877908 >>4877905 >which i mean except, how the fuck did i type that so wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:30:07 2014 No.4877910 >>4877905 Then again, it's not even his real name.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:32:00 2014 No.4877913 >>4877910 yeah but his real name was იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:32:18 2014 No.4877914

>>4877832
>No, it doesn't. Again, if you hire thugs or mercenaries, people won't lend to you, they won't invest in you, they won't provide you with water or dispute resolution services, they won't buy from you.

They'll invest as long as their investment benefits them ie. gives a profitable return

They'll sell as long as you pay with money on time.

And they'll buy as long as they need or want your product.

>Its not "the current system", even in today's system, companies constantly worry about bad press, because it means people won't invest in them.

Because they'll be liable in court and sales, big bad government will come after them if they step out of line. Because to day you can take it to court if you can compete with their law teams and lobbyists, even in a regulated society they find a way to get the upper hand.

>Investment will be very important. Its still important now, but in today's system the state will often coerce the banks into giving you loans or you can rely on patents to pay for you ventures. People won't really get ludicrously rich in anarchy.

Says who? It's anarchy, the strongest rules, there's no mechanism for distribution of power other than raw power; violence.

>These billionaires we have now are not natural, they're that rich because the government will use force on anyone who uses their ideas or products. Look at Bill Gates for example, he'd be nothing if he wasn't a patent troll.

At least he didn't have to hire mercenaries to force you to use windows 8.1 at gunpoint. He isn't the law. Again like with the commies, what's the incentive of inventing anything, if some smug can just copy it, without paying?

(1/2)

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:33:42 2014 No.4877919

>>4877851
>>4877863
Sin taxes are there both to earn the state money but also to ensure it's stability by disincentivizing abuse.
Same reason why the thinking political class (rather than the modern bunch of retards who barely rationalize their positions) banned cannabis after they saw what a disaster it was in Egypt once the lower classes started being able to afford greater quantities of it and keep themselves perpetually lethargic.

Anonymous Sat May 10 21:34:58 2014 No.4877925

>>4877832
(2/2)

>Black markets are not free markets, and there is regulation, since obviously what they're selling is regulated in the first place.

No it's not, you can't get the courts to solve a drug dispute if a customer refuses to pay or dishonor an agreement. You have to be the law yourself as a drug cartel.

>Its also regulated by cartels who know they're already breaking the law, and so don't give a single shit about killing people and intimidating them to ensure prices stay high. If it wasn't illegal, you would have people who make contracts with other companies and more engaged with the community, as so they wouldn't kill or harm because people would stop buying from them.

Unless, they were the only ones in your area who have what you want? Making cartels is a dominant strategy on a free market as it ensures a beneficial profit margin to the companies involved and better means of driving out competition, the best market position is the position of controlling and regulating the market? A rigged game is the best game. Don't you want freedom? It's none of the governments business how you rig the market.

>Also, its not good business. Raising the prices of drugs is bad business because people can't afford them and turn to other alternatives. Heroine costs too much, krokadil fills the void. Cocaine costs too much, crack fills the void.

Drugs is a very good commodity, it sells itself.

>Half of what story? Those are the facts.

Yeah but it's the facts you leave out. You never tell of the positive effects of government. Your ideological blindness is almost commie like.

>I think you are naive. You're still in the stone-age of ethics.

No I'm a realist, you know, human nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:36:08 2014 No.4877929 >>4877914 >there's no mechanism for distribution of power in anarchy there is no power, i think you may have it confused with chaos

>>	Anonymous Sat May 10 21:41:03 2014 No.4877946 >>4877929 Who is enFORCING your idea of anarchy?

Anonymous Sun May 11 07:53:16 2014 No.4879281

>>4872753

Killing Hope - William Blum
Bad Samaritans - Ha-Joon Chang
In defense of Conservatism - Roger Scruton
Carbon Crunch - Dieter Helm
Lights in the Tunnel - Maartin Ford
World Hunger - Frances Lappe
Next 100 years - George Fridman
Debunking Economics - Steve keen
The Fourth Political Theory - Alexander Dugin
To kill a Nation - Michael Parenti
Capital - Thomas Piketty
Men on strike - Helen Smith
Fools crusade - Diana Johnsstone
The Elusive Quest for Growth - William Russell Easterly

>>	Anonymous Sun May 11 07:56:45 2014 No.4879293 >>4877929 There's no such thing as "no power", silly. No educated anarchist would even try to deny this. Anarchism itself is concerned with power distribution, not poofing it away with a magic stick.

Anonymous Sun May 11 09:34:31 2014 No.4879519
File: 73 KB, 1500x1000, teh cause of peace.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4877946
ideas only need enforcing when there is a vocal majority who oppose them. most forms of anarchy are based on a general consensus of most of the population that they do not wish to be governed and are prepared to defend both themselves and other people from those who attempt to enforce governance of some kind upon them. in many ways this isn't that different to how most current democratic governments rule, they dont use the police and the apparatus of the state to enforce ideals on the majority, they seek the support of the majority of people before acting.
>>4879293
>Anarchism itself is concerned with power distribution, not poofing it away with a magic stick.
well if power is the ability to exert your will over other individuals, in an anarchist society there would technically be no power, at least no political power. you could also define this as power simply being distributed among all people equally rather than concentrated in the hands of leaders. both definitions are fairly accurate.

Anonymous Sun May 11 10:37:42 2014 No.4879704 [DELETED]

>>4879519
>well if power is the ability to exert your will over other individuals, in an anarchist society there would technically be no power, at least no political power.
Asking someone to pass the salt is an exertion of will over other individuals.

Your concept of power is too simplistic, which is actually one of the problems of anarchism in general I think. Rearrangements of social structures just lead to new ways of wielding power. It used to be merely a matter of force, then court culture came along and it become a matter of plotting and conspiring. Then democracy came around and the plotting and conspiring became even more subtle and complex. We operate on all kinds of different levens of insincerity, pay lip service to ideals et cetera. Anarchy, as anarchists view it, will merely be the completion of subtleness and drive power even more underground, but the fundamental dynamics will remain the same. Anarchism is essentially roommate culture on a large scale. You try to influence people in such ways that they never get the sense that you are exerting power over them or in any way have the upper hand. They do the same, unless they're gullible and dumb. In an anarchistic society it will again be a matter of idealists being ruled by those who pretend to be idealists.

Anonymous Sun May 11 10:38:47 2014 No.4879706

>>4879519
>well if power is the ability to exert your will over other individuals, in an anarchist society there would technically be no power, at least no political power.
Asking someone to pass the salt is an exertion of will over other individuals.

Your concept of power is too simplistic, which is actually one of the problems of anarchism in general I think. Rearrangements of social structures just lead to new ways of wielding power. It used to be merely a matter of force, then court culture came along and it become a matter of plotting and conspiring. Then democracy came around and the plotting and conspiring became even more subtle and complex. We operate on all kinds of different levels of insincerity, pay lip service to ideals et cetera. Anarchy, as anarchists view it, will merely be the completion of subtleness and drive power even more underground, but the fundamental dynamics will remain the same. Anarchism is essentially roommate culture on a large scale. You try to influence people in such ways that they never get the sense that you are exerting power over them or in any way have the upper hand. They do the same, unless they're gullible and dumb. In an anarchistic society it will again be a matter of idealists being ruled by those who pretend to be idealists.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature