/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 38 KB, 303x450, Tycho_Brahe[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 17:53:56 2011 No.3364052 [Reply] [Original]

In the mind of the internet libertarian, everyone who became rich did so through hard work, and everyone else is just being lazy. How do we know they are being lazy? Because they are not wealthy. Yet the working class can be compelled to work overtime, while the capitalists cannot. The working class, especially in the third world, has unsafe conditions and is paid poorly in comparison to the vast profits posted by the corporations who buy hours of their lives.

People living in such poverty should be able to afford the extravagant cost of healthcare, thinks the internet libertarian, and if they can't, well, they should have worked harder.

The thought of driving down the cost of essential services by nationalizing them does not even occur to the internet libertarian; he instead believes the opposite. Privatization, rather than driving up prices or slashing quality in the quest for profits, will lead to efficiency. In the mind of the internet libertarian, every market is perfectly competitive. Cartels, oligopolies and monopolies, and above all barriers to entry simply do not exist.

The idea of people working together and sharing their profits equally is regarded with disdain, because of the selfish paradigm through which they view the world. One day, they think, they will climb the ladder, rise up out of the masses and become one of the exploiters they defend. One day they will have a learjet and a private island.

One day they too will be wealthy enough to buy crank economists like hayek and mises media attention like their heroes did in the 50s.

And then, they think, the world will echo with the libertarian battle-cry: "I've got mine; fuck you!"

For the origins of the libertarian movement, see:

http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 17:56:56 2011 No.3364074

I generally agree with libertarian principles.

You are setting up a false dichotomy though. I believe, for example, in healthcare to those who don't afford it, and a justice system and police force, paid for by mandatory taxes.

If libertarians believed what you're talking about, it seems to me like they'd actually be anarchists. There are various strengths of the philosophy.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:22:56 2011 No.3364235

assuming you're speaking of nationalizing healthcare in america here- as of now american pharmaceutical companies produce a majority of the drugs coming out to treat previously untreatable diseases. they can do this because they make a profit from selling drugs to americans at market price. if pharmaceutical companies were conscripted and forced to provide drugs at below market prices, we would cripple our ability to cure new diseases

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:32:56 2011 No.3364284
File: 44 KB, 359x449, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The civil-issues attitude reffered to as libertarianism is correct.
The economic-issues attitude reffered to as libertarianism is incorrect.

Please don't deliberately try to mix up the two.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:38:56 2011 No.3364316 File: 644 KB, 5000x3690, 1289063483288.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll give you a 7/10 Not bad stuff

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:47:56 2011 No.3364349 The problem is the family. If we didn't have families then there would be no inherited wealth, and we would actually be able to have equality of opportunity. Simple.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:52:56 2011 No.3364368 >>3364349 academically there is nothing holding people back any more. there's a deluge of materials on the web for highschool stuff now. even previously, anybody can go self-study in a library.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:53:56 2011 No.3364372 >>3364349 And i suppose you would simply destroy the company after you died.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:55:56 2011 No.3364381 >>3364349 Except children are one of the primary reasons why people seek to do well. You're kinda quick to attempt to destroy that incentive.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:00:56 2011 No.3364407

How do rich people get rich? By providing others with things they want for money

How do the poor remain poor? By not providing people with what they want in exchange for money

What you want is to steal the money of those who produce things people want because they are selfish and giving it to people who don't produce anything people want. Isn't it even more selfish and greedy to steal from those people who have earned there money through voluntary exchange.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:04:56 2011 No.3364425

Healthcare is expensive because of things like the FDA and The American Medical Association.

Lets just for example say that it cost one million dollars to save a particular persons life, should the rest of society be forced to pay the medical cost to save this persons life when they in no way contributed to his illness?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:11:56 2011 No.3364459

It's more about cleverness than just hard work...

The construction worker puts far more man hours into his paltry wage than the economist does cruising the stock market.

At the end of the day the construction worker scrapes by while the economist makes millions buying and selling stocks... He didn't work harder, but he was very clever.

People like Bill Gates and Mark Z do so incredibly well not because they worked hard, but because they were visionaries who capitalized on a market before that market even existed.

Hard work means nothing, it's an agile mind that matters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:15:56 2011 No.3364480 >>3364052 op, most of 4chan are heartless aspie bastards who don't comprehend that other people are actually people, with thoughts and feelings of their own. obviously they would all claim to be libertarian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:19:56 2011 No.3364493 File: 173 KB, 316x330, 1308333393552.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3364480 Of course we do. What makes you think we don't care about people.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:25:56 2011 No.3364528

>>3364493
take, for example, >>3364425
according to this fellow, because he isn't involved with someone else's illness he shouldn't pay taxes that support healthcare. because fuck the other guy, right? and who cares if pharmaceutical companies spend billions more on viagra research than on effective antiretrovirals for HIV or a cure for cystic fibrosis. shit don't bother me.

hey, if i immigrate to the US can i pay less taxes because i'm not using your public schools?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:47:56 2011 No.3364623

>>3364528

>according to this fellow, because he isn't involved with someone else's illness he shouldn't pay taxes that support healthcare. because fuck the other guy, right?

There are plenty of charity organizations that support lower income individuals who need help. State charities(programs) are typically extremely wasteful.

>and who cares if pharmaceutical companies spend billions more on viagra research than on effective antiretrovirals for HIV or a cure for cystic fibrosis. shit don't bother me.

but they do spend money to research those things.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:24:56 2011 No.3364859

>>3364623
those charities rely on public donations. awww shit, same thing as state programs? except state programs need to stand up to the watchful eye of the taxpayer. charities don't.
but you're missing the point, if they spent as much money as they spend on viagra research as they did on antiretrovirals, we'd be far far ahead of where we are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:48:56 2011 No.3365041 >>3364859 >except state programs need to stand up to the watchful eye of the taxpayer. You are joking right. Taxpayers can't do shit about how government spends money. You can pick which charity you give your money to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:50:56 2011 No.3365051 >>3364528 >no money for AIDS research You are a fucking moron. >else's illness he shouldn't pay taxes that support healthcare. because fuck the other guy, right? give me your money you selfish asshole.

pascal !PascaL9QAg Sat Jul 9 20:54:56 2011 No.3365074

Why I am no longer a libertarian concerning the economy, or the problem with capitalism in essay format.

Libertarians often assume that a capitalist economy is a fair system, that allows the hard workers to get ahead. But work does not always result in profit.

The end.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:55:56 2011 No.3365082 >>3365074 >But work does not always result in profit. I can work all day polishing a turd, but that doesn't mean that anyone will buy it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:56:56 2011 No.3365089 >>3365074 name a system that's more fair than capitalism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:57:56 2011 No.3365096 >>3365082 Can I have your business details?

>>	pascal !PascaL9QAg Sat Jul 9 20:57:56 2011 No.3365099 >>3365082 exactly

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:58:56 2011 No.3365111 File: 37 KB, 274x280, lol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3365089 laissez... faire... capitalism...

>>	pascal !PascaL9QAg Sat Jul 9 20:58:56 2011 No.3365112 >>3365089 I hold there is no such thing as a fair system.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:58:56 2011 No.3365114

>>3365082

No one's saying you can crank out products without finding people who will buy them, this isn't a planned economy.

However, you do not need a boss to make decisions like this. The workers in a company can decide on things by consensus or by voting, it's called democracy.

And yes it does work. You can either get higher wages or more competitive prices, in the absence of a capitalist or shareholders sucking down the majority of the profits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:59:56 2011 No.3365115 >>3365099 So you have to make what others will buy therefore giving others what they want. Do you want people to be forced to buy you polished turd?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 20:59:56 2011 No.3365119 >>3365112 Some systems are fairer than others. Capitalism is probably fairer than feudal serfdom, for instance. In turn, the odds are that capitalism is not the best system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:02:56 2011 No.3365135 >>3365114 There are worker owned companies in capitalist countries, you want to force everyone to be in one. You're wrong democracy is terrible it has failed time and time again as people always vote to benefit themselves at the expense of someone else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:03:56 2011 No.3365138 Real communism would be fair. But unfortunately we aren't on that time in humankind's history yet.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:04:56 2011 No.3365147

>>3365114

Worker Cooperatives would only work in a Free-Market and being privately owned by the workers, being perfectly compatible with Capitalism, or more specifically being Mutualism.

The moment you try to impose this system upon all of the economy and Collective the means of production (which is what a lot of the "Anarcho"-Socialists and "Libertarian" Socialists want), you end up with de facto State ownership and economic planning, that suffers the same problems State-Socialism suffers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:04:56 2011 No.3365148 >>3365114 You can always buy shares in the company you work for and attend a shareholder meeting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:05:56 2011 No.3365152 >>3365135 Why would people work for wages if they had an alternative? the 'happy slave' is a propaganda piece, not reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:06:56 2011 No.3365158 There is really no difference between someone paying for your labor and someone paying for what you produce. Commies are idiots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:07:56 2011 No.3365167 >>3365147 Elaborate on this please. I don't see why this needs to be the case. As you said, mutualism. Just outlaw exploitation. People can work as individuals or as partners, but no masters and no servants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:07:56 2011 No.3365168 >>3365152 >Why would people work for wages Because they want money to buy things, what are they supposed to work for?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:08:56 2011 No.3365170

>>3365138
why do you think giving people income regardless of how much work they do will ever be anything other than a catastrophe?

and of course to prevent said catastrophe what you end up doing is instead of paying people in return for their hard work of their own volition, you have to create a nightmare authoritarian state that shoots you if you don't work 14 hours in your factory.

workers of the world my ass, it's terrible for everyone. except the despot, obviously.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:08:56 2011 No.3365172

>>3365167

There are no masters or servants in a free market system. Also, the idea of "Wage slavery" is just a myth based on the unscientific Labor Theory of Value, and has already been debunked by the Theory of Marginal Utility and the Time Preference Theory of Interest.
>mises.org/daily/1680

Entrepeneurs do an important service to workers, giving then a wage before the output they helped to produce could create an income, taking most of the risks over savings/Capital goods, collecting information and acting upon risks and helping to make the design of the products sold - the REAL source of value, as it gives Marginal Utility to the products. Wage-Relations are a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If the workers do not like this arrangement and want something better, they are free to form their own Worker-Cooperatives/Mutual-Aid Societies, lend their wages at an interest ( to get the "full product of their labor" as Marx would put it) or even attempt to become Entrepeneurs. The only things preventing them from doing so are the State and the fact that most workers simply do no want this, due to their high time preference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:09:56 2011 No.3365176 >>3364052 >driving down costs by nationalizing 3/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:09:56 2011 No.3365178 >>3365170 That's a misunderstanding of the concept. Besides, I'm talking about an utopia wherein robots do all the work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:09:56 2011 No.3365179 >>3365167 >>3365167 >but no masters and no servants. Someone paying you to do something is not the same as a master and servant. You can choose not to work for someone. Seems we have a brain washed chomskiest among us.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:12:56 2011 No.3365190

>>3365158

That isn't true.

If you work on an assembly line you do not get paid the full value of the goods you produce. You don't even get paid half that.

Say you work making televisions. That's an expensive product. Hundreds of dollars a unit. But you don't sell it to a distributor; your boss takes it, pays you a comparative pittance (depending on which country you live in) and sells it *himself*.

This is justified and rationalized because the boss owns the factory. This is the nexus of the problem. Means of production need to be owned by the people who operate them. Not bosses, not governments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:12:56 2011 No.3365193 >>3365178 well for the latter sentence i agree. but in a pragmatic sense, what do you mean by the first sentence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:14:56 2011 No.3365206 >>3365190 ...then let the people form their own company. Why the hell do you think capitalism disallows this? Don't fucking force them and steal all the existing factories, moron.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:14:56 2011 No.3365209

I always laugh at leftist who are against globalism. They look at sweat shop factories as exploitation and slavery, but those people who worked in them have a much higher standard of living than what they were used to, or else they wouldn't work there. Most came off of farms that barely sustained them. They believe that a country should become rich over night without the hard work of building their capital reserves. Look at China years of hard work has lead them into being a world power, it wasn't leftist reforms or anything like that, in fact liberalizing market is what caused their current boom.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:15:56 2011 No.3365214

>>3365172

Regardless of the theory of marginal utility, it's exploitative. If we had a cooperative economy, the average person would be much better off.

That's what's important. It is a terrible thing to have people in poverty when there are resources to go round.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:15:56 2011 No.3365215 >>3365190 because your boss has to buy raw materials and maintain infrastructure a worker doesn't worry about these things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:17:56 2011 No.3365226 >>3365209 That's not true at all. China got there thanks to its careful protectionism and currency manipulations. Why do you think it's so hard for Western corporations to get into China? Why do you think even Google didn't get into China?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:17:56 2011 No.3365227 File: 18 KB, 461x342, 11790623_gal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3365214 >Regardless of the theory of marginal utility, it's exploitative so you have nothing to say i take it?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:18:56 2011 No.3365233

>>3365193
The idea that just because a communist state isn't democratic, it's authoritarian, is basically a consequence of the misnomer that was communism in the XXth century - that had little to do with actual communist theory.

Why exactly would a leveling out of payments create a catastrophe? In a true communist society, the despot would be paid the same as a random worker. So, unless you're suggesting that there wouldn't be enough goods to go around, there's no greater problem with this idea. And if you do believe there's not enough goods to go around, you're implying that any society, communist, capitalist or other, is by default condemning a part of its population to subexistence.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:21:56 2011 No.3365247

>>3365214
>If we had a cooperative economy

we do capitalism is all about negotiating and cooperating a deal that benefits both parties. Poor people refuse to cooperate, refuse to be useful and are too selfish to produce anything that another person might want that they could sell, or to work for someone who already knows what people want and produce it for him at a wage. Should we pay people to do nothing, or to produce what no one wants simply to gratify his own selfishness.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:21:56 2011 No.3365248

>>3365227

If we had a cooperative economy, the average person would be much better off.

That's what's important. It is a terrible thing to have people in poverty when there are resources to go round.

That's what I have to say. There is a moral basis for socialism that stems from utilitarianism, regardless of what system of rights you adhere to.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:23:56 2011 No.3365258

>>3365247

Fucking dickensian is what you are.

>>Poor people refuse to cooperate, refuse to be useful and are too selfish to produce anything that another person might want that they could sell, or to work for someone who already knows what people want and produce it for him at a wage

This is what capitalists actually believe to justify their rule over the economy. Herp Derp daddy knows best.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:23:56 2011 No.3365259 >>3365226 China rose when the liberalized their economy, there is also India as an example. Protectionist policies keep people employed at the expense of the consumer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:24:56 2011 No.3365264 >>3365248 >there is a moral basis for theft dont think so

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:24:56 2011 No.3365266 >>3365248 Define poverty. Do we cure it by giving Mercedes to people who have no jobs? At what arbitrary point does poverty end.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:25:56 2011 No.3365273
File: 11 KB, 580x310, 12-angry-men-header.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3365248

In what cooperative economy are thinking of is the average person better off? Why is it that poor people today living in the same quality of homes that middle class families lived in a few decades ago? Why is it that our poverty line is one of the highest in the world? Our "poor" live like kings when compared to only 50 years ago.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:26:56 2011 No.3365274

>>3365233
>Why exactly would a leveling out of payments create a catastrophe?

because you would get a lack of people wanting to do thing that are hard but high in demand where in a capitalist system they could get a much higher wage and justify the expenditure of their time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:26:56 2011 No.3365276 >>3365266 There is such a thing as a poverty line, you know.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:27:56 2011 No.3365279

>>3365264

In Argentina, there were a bunch of factories that had to close due to inefficiency and bankruptcy.

They got stormed by their (former) workers. The legal system gave them ownership in the interests of the economy. They now operate smoothly without the overhead of a boss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:28:56 2011 No.3365283 >>3365279 My point being, if you want to call that theft, so much the better for theft.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:28:56 2011 No.3365289 >>3365276 and its totally arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:29:56 2011 No.3365293 >>3365266 You cure it by giving people control of their lives. Poverty is defined by a lack of control over one's circumstances. Welfare and charity only alleviate the symptoms.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:30:56 2011 No.3365300

>>3365214
bro. that's how the real world works i've known plenty of impoverished people and to be completely honest, it's their own fault 90% of the time and unfortunately these same types of people reckless impose their choices on other via procreation. but at the end of the day, it's their problem not mine

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:31:56 2011 No.3365302 >>3365293 and you are in control of your life when a democratic majority forces you to do something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:31:56 2011 No.3365303 >>3365289 If we can make peoples' lives better we should. Just because mass technology has made some improvements doesnt mean we should stop now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:32:56 2011 No.3365308 >>3365303 >If we can make peoples' lives better we should. Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:32:56 2011 No.3365310 >>3365283 >A guy steal my wallet now he has more money, good for him

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:32:56 2011 No.3365311

>>3365233
> The idea that just because a communist state isn't democratic, it's authoritarian, is basically a consequence of the misnomer that was communism in the XXth century - that had little to do with actual communist theory.

wtf bro, did you even read what i said to you?

in a communist system there is absolutely zero incentive for people to work hard, or even work at all. to each according to his needs; a communist state has to support him all the same.

naturally an economy in which nobody wants to work is completely fucking untenable, and so the state has to FORCE people to go to work.

it's not special cases in history. it's the LOGICAL IMPLICATION of the philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:33:56 2011 No.3365315 >>3365303 why? are you saying when i graduate and get a good job next year i'm obligated to allocate some of my extra 4k income per month to some impoverished fuckface "just cuz'"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:33:56 2011 No.3365316 >>3365310 Except you would also lump in taxation and social security, because the government is taking your money and giving it to someone else. There has to be a legal process, it can't be arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:35:56 2011 No.3365323 Can't wait until this shitty exploitative system we have dies out.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:36:56 2011 No.3365329

>>3365279

> born into a poor family
> self-study, take out a loan to go to college
> use their knowledge to invent a useful new product
> create a successful business, creating many billions of wealth and supplying your workers with a fair trade for their services
> you encourage a mob to steal it from this person as part of a moral crusade

you're a total nutcase.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:37:56 2011 No.3365334

>>3365315

>why? are you saying when i graduate and get a good job next year i'm obligated to allocate some of my extra 4k income per month to some impoverished fuckface "just cuz'"?

No, not 'just cuz', because it's the morally right thing to do, you selfish, degenerate dungbeetle. What you are referring to is called progressive taxation.

More importantly for you, you'll get in a shitload of trouble with the revenue agency if you don't chip in.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:37:56 2011 No.3365335

>>3365274
Is that why garbagemen get paid so well?

In a communist society, jobs would be handed out by merit (say, academic achievement or efficienty production). The worst jobs would go to the people who couldn't do anything else. Likewise, more competent people would be given more demanding jobs. Each one, according to their ability, to each one, according to their necessity. It would take a society-wide effort to go around doing that, and this is why a communist society can only come from a revolution of the people.

>>3365311
You do have a point. Of course, in Star Trek nobody gets paid yet everyone works for the betterment of mankind. The ideology that each member of society is a working cod in it is an important part of communism. Besides, authoritarian pseudocommunist states weren't so because people "refused" to work, they were authoriarian because they lacked the capacity to control the political and social uproar that followed the revolution. It's also a problem of psychology, varying from dictator to dictator.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:38:56 2011 No.3365339

>>3365303
>If we can make peoples' lives better we should.

We already do. People trade money for things that make their lives better, the only way for these people to make money is to trade things that make peoples lives better for money.

Poor people refuse to participate, charity to those people would stand in advancement of people as a whole. It would all be at the expense of productive people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:40:56 2011 No.3365351 >>3365334 >stealing others people money and calling them selfish. My god its like I'm talking to a communist.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:40:56 2011 No.3365352
File: 27 KB, 512x384, 1305279186017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3365335

>In a communist society, jobs would be handed out by merit (say, academic achievement or efficienty production). The worst jobs would go to the people who couldn't do anything else. Likewise, more competent people would be given more demanding jobs. Each one, according to their ability, to each one, according to their necessity. It would take a society-wide effort to go around doing that, and this is why a communist society can only come from a revolution of the people.

This would NEVER happen. Your idealistic nonsense is childish. Once you hit the real world and see people work in their own interests 99% of the time, you might change your tune. Until then, continue to bank on the goodness of "human nature"

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:41:56 2011 No.3365356

>>3365329

Right, because social mobility is so high under laissez-faire. Why, if it wasn't for those pesky regulations, there would be no oligopolies and social stratification!

But in the case of the recovered factories, you also should remember that they were bankrupt due to inept capitalist management. They failed by every metric.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:41:56 2011 No.3365359 >>3365316 But it is totally arbitrary. Who they give money to will be totally arbitrary based on guideline that are totally arbitrary.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:41:56 2011 No.3365360

>>3365334
ad hominens aside, you still didn't answer my question. why am i obliged to helping the impoverished? i didn't put them in their situation, yet i'm somehow responsible to get them out? hmm makes a lot of sense.

ps my aunt used be a dental hygenist until she had fucking three unlegitamate children and her life spiraled downhill due to drug additions. since you're so fucking goddamn worried about it how about you email so you can personally sort it out mr. white knight philanthropist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:42:56 2011 No.3365362 >>3365352 >People can never rule themselves without a king; it's simply human nature. They need social betters. And further it's my god given right to rule.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:42:56 2011 No.3365366 >>3365362 yup

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:43:56 2011 No.3365371 >>3365360 >In a functioning society we ignore others and stick out for ourselves only.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:43:56 2011 No.3365373

>>3365311
>Self-empowered cashier at wal-mart.
The core philosophy of communism is being paid to ability. A manager will earn more than a worker, but a good manager is harder to find than a good worker.

It's a sad sight to see managers earning 4 times as much as the lowest level employees. There are always cuts in wages of the lowest level employees while managerial positions are never touched.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:44:56 2011 No.3365374

>>3365356
Capitalism allows for failure of a company if it refuse to make money, thats how competition works and how things get better. It's not an argument against capitalism.

Of course when a company fail an entire society doesn't collapse like in communism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:44:56 2011 No.3365377 >>3365362 We do need an aristocracy of some kind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:45:56 2011 No.3365386 >>3365374 >The success of McDonald's and Blackwater is good for society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:45:56 2011 No.3365387 >>3365362 Democracy is not self rule its being ruled by a majority. Apparently you have forgotten that you can start your own company under the evil capitalist system.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:46:56 2011 No.3365391

>>3365352
You're the one who's simplifying it by suggesting that a system guided through self-interest is fair. In America, where wage disparity is smaller, striking is rarer than in third-world country where wage disparity is much higher. Why aren't high-rank employees striking to demand more money? In pseudocommunist countries there weren't strikes, either, nor was there any movement toward shorter work hours. You claim this was because of the authoritarian state, but the authoritarian state was a consequence of personal eccentricities of the dictators and political turmoil, not economic need.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:46:56 2011 No.3365393 >>3365386 Black Water is supported by the government. There is nothing wrong with McDonalds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:47:56 2011 No.3365394 >>3365360 You are as obliged to care for the impoverished as your mother cares about you living in her basement. GTFO.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:47:56 2011 No.3365399 >>3365377 No we don't. We didn't have one for just about the entirety of human existence. >>3365387 I was pointing to the idiocy of your 'human nature' argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:47:56 2011 No.3365400 >>3365391 >You're the one who's simplifying it by suggesting that a system guided through self-interest is fair It is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:48:56 2011 No.3365403 >>3365394 Shes obliged because she brought me into existence, even so there is abortion and she can kick me out whenever she wants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:49:56 2011 No.3365409 >>3365400 >It is. Nuh-uh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:49:56 2011 No.3365410 >>3365374 Maybe it should fail to critically reflect what went wrong. Instead of being bailed out for example..

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:50:56 2011 No.3365414

>>3365399

>I was pointing to the idiocy of your 'human nature' argument.

You where talking to me. And yes, that's how the world works. The world has been dominated by the strong and the smart for a very long time. And even on the micro scale the battle for supremacy goes on.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:50:56 2011 No.3365415

>>3365371
Doesn't understand that by working in your own self interest you must think about the interest in of others. If I want a TV I have to produce and sell something to someone who wants it and then trade the money I receive to buy the TV. Everyone benefits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:50:56 2011 No.3365417 >>3365409 Yes it is. And you can open a history book for my proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:50:56 2011 No.3365419 >>3365393 But Blackwater is a successful company in a capitalist system. Therefore it must be good. Afte rall, only companies that are bad for society fail.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:51:56 2011 No.3365420

>>3365394
LOL nope.jpg you still fail to prove why. good luck with getting me to cooperate with that since reason and logic aren't your thing. just so you know, all that income that i'm "obliged" to giving to the poor goes to arms and martial arts classes just so i can deal with fucktards like you :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:51:56 2011 No.3365423 >>3365403 Well, tell your mom i feel sorry for her.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:51:56 2011 No.3365424

>>3365335
i'm glad you concede i have a point, hopefully with some hard thought and some exposure to other points of view you will come to reject this idea.

like i say, post scarcity, everything changes. but we're nowhere near that, so we should talk pragmatically.

i don't even disagree with 'to each according to his needs'. if somebody needs food, they should receive it, funded by taxation. but economies provide more than just needs, and so the implication of communism is in fact to each according to his WANTS. wealth is spread evenly which means, after sustenance, people start getting what they want.

at this point what you are doing is forcing some people to work very hard in order to provide other people with more frivolities. i think this has no moral basis at all.

my moral basis is that you can't encroach upon the free will of another, unless it's to compel them to provide human rights. you cannot force somebody to work at the point of a gun (and it is, if you think about it, implicitly at the point of a gun) in order to provide somebody else with a TV or a car. you cannot ban somebody from starting their own company, selling others products by mutual consensual trade, and using their hard work to reward themselves. you cannot take property from somebody and give it to the people 'because they want it'. it isn't theirs. there is absolutely no moral basis for this kind of action.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:51:56 2011 No.3365425 >>3365399 And for most of our 'human existence' we were no better than the other apes. Humans NEED leaders.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:51:56 2011 No.3365427 >>3365415 Or I could just steal it. That works in my interest too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:53:56 2011 No.3365434 >>3365391 >>3365391 >pseudocommunist countries there weren't strikes Yes there were, the soviet union collapsed because of them. How funny that an entire societies united upheavel didn't lead to a communist state but to a capitalist state.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:53:56 2011 No.3365436 >>3365425 >we were no better than the other apes. We still aren't. We are nothing in this universe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:54:56 2011 No.3365439 >>3365427 Only in communism. In capitalism people have property rights, which is the basis of liberty and freedom. Self Ownership.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:55:56 2011 No.3365444 >>3365394 also, don't compare my relationship with me and mother to my relationship to some bum i've never met. what two consenting adults do is none of your business.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:55:56 2011 No.3365447 >>3365439 Wut? Stealing your TV works exactly in my self interest. Your property rights don't concern me. I want that TV so I'll take it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:57:56 2011 No.3365451 >>3365447 By your rejection of my right to have property, you also reject your right to my property. Its a contradictory statement

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:58:56 2011 No.3365458 >>3365451 Wut? I want your TV so I'll take it. I don't give a shit about 'property rights.' Now your relying on 'property rights' after claiming that a society run in self interest was a fair society.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:59:56 2011 No.3365460

>>3365444
You're her bum. You're not finding this funny at all, but really, it's hilarious.

Following your moral viewpoints, should we;
1> stop supporting the impoverished and deal with corpses in the street and social unrest.
or
2> exterminate the lazy.

Personally, i'd rather behead the manager culture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:59:56 2011 No.3365461 >>3365447 We need to be able to work in our own self interest. If you steal my things you are turning me into a slave and taking my own ability to work in my self interest away, I can only work in your self interest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:00:56 2011 No.3365466 >>3365461 Good. It's in my self interest to have your working in my self interest, slave.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:00:56 2011 No.3365467
File: 65 KB, 717x453, vegeta1n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3365458

if you reject MY right to have property(AKA by taking it by force), you also by the same extension reject YOUR right to have property also. Is it really that hard to understand? Your attacking the very foundation you're using to justify your theft.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:01:56 2011 No.3365468 >>3365466 you working*

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:02:56 2011 No.3365472 >>3365460 No, stop being forced to help the impoverished. Why would anyone have a child if the refuse to take care of it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:02:56 2011 No.3365475 >>3365467 Who said I need to 'justify' having a TV. I'll just kill anyone who tries to take it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:03:09 2011 No.3365483 >>3365466 >It's in my self interest to have your working in my self interest, slave. and so you have created for yourself a communist state, how wonderful. Must I clarify that we both must be able to work in our own self interests.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:03:56 2011 No.3365478

>>3365460
where did i say we should exterminate the impoverished? i said if i didn't force them into their situation i shouldn't have to help them. if you want to help have fucking at it. i already gave you the opportunity to deal with my aunt. way to deduce an extreme viewpoint from my ABSENCE of viewpoints.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:03:56 2011 No.3365481

>>3365424
>at this point what you are doing is forcing some people to work very hard in order to provide other people with more frivolities. i think this has no moral basis at all.

It's interesting that you put it like this, because that's exactly how I feel about capitalism. (Not that capitalism is such a flawed system - in fact, it's what we're stuck with until we reach the point in history where communism can be successfully implemented).

What you're suggesting is pretty much a consequence of your experience in a first-world country. In third-world countries, living above the poverty line is a privilege. In such countries, theft, misinformation, fraud and even murder are incentivized by the capitalist society that allows these criminals to prosper. America is a country with a lower wage disparity, as are most developed countries and some failed pseudocommunist states. What you call freedom to produce and trade is in other countries freedom to explore and defraud.

In some ways, we both agree with each other - we both agree that every human being has the right to the bare minimum, to live above the line of poverty. With the whole world living in such an utopia, I would be more than happy to accept capitalism.

But as it is, I believe the only way to remove the billions of people from their status asf poverty-stricken is to institute communism, which would level out the inequalities.

I agree that in a post-communist state, disparities in production and wealth should be allowed as it would be every man's right to get together to produce, and to own what he produces and do with it what he sees fit. But that'd only be moral, in my viewpoint, in the distant future where doing so wouldn't mean forcing innocent people to starve.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:03:56 2011 No.3365482 >>3365475 then your also refuting your right to be alive also. Your logic is filled with self-contradictory statements.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:04:56 2011 No.3365487 >>3365482 Who said I have a 'right' to live?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:04:56 2011 No.3365490 >>3365487 You

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:05:56 2011 No.3365493 >>3365490 I never said that. All I've said was that I want your TV so I'm gonna take it. It's in my self interest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:06:56 2011 No.3365495 File: 613 KB, 295x221, 1310245008429.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3365493 Not gonna get trolled by you anymore

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:07:56 2011 No.3365499 >>3365481 >It's interesting that you put it like this, because that's exactly how I feel about capitalism. Except that in capitalism no one forces you to do those things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:07:56 2011 No.3365500 >>3365472 You have a cold cold heart. So babies are not humans and have no rights. This could pretty much be your easymode excuse for the following question; If children have no rights, what gives you the right to empower yourself but not an orphan?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:07:56 2011 No.3365501 >>3365495 Not gonna defend self interest anymore?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:07:56 2011 No.3365502

>>3365434
True, I mainly meant in the early years, 1920-1950, before the Gladnost. By then it was clear that there wasn't real wage equality because of the development of the politburo. It still stands that Stalin's dictatorship wasn't economically-funded, but politically (and of course, based on his personality).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:08:56 2011 No.3365505 >>3365501 see >>3365467

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:09:56 2011 No.3365510 >>3365505 You brought property rights into this for no reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:09:56 2011 No.3365512 >>3365481 >What you're suggesting is pretty much a consequence of your experience in a first-world country. and you live in a third world country, that you know these things. Or are you parroting some idiot who sees things in a skewed view.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:10:56 2011 No.3365516 >>3365499 Not true. In capitalism, servitude is coerced by virtue of prior ownership of all necessary resources.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:10:56 2011 No.3365517 >>3365512 So you deny these things happen?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:12:56 2011 No.3365521 >>3365501 You can't work in you're own self interest if you are subject to slavery as you subject others to slavery. Both parties have to be able to work in their own self interest.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:12:56 2011 No.3365522

>>3365481
it's patently obvious, unless you suffer from pretty strong confirmation bias, that this argument is totally flawed.

first and third world countries are often 'capitalist'. the logical conclusion of this is not that capitalism is to blame for the conditions in third world countries. that's insane logic; it's the totally incorrect conclusion. the correct conclusion is that capitalism itself is not the causal factor (as it has not caused disaster in, you know, the whole of europe, australia, america...). africa's problems are a result of a multitude of novel factors.

in fact the only thing that does correlate with poverty is communism. i find it a bit bizarre that not only did you somehow try to imply a lack of correlation proves causation; you also ignored the genuine correlation. russia, cuba, north korea, china: the populace of ALL of these countries were/are in very poor conditions. of course, this could be because of novel factors and so this isn't a valid argument against communism either (i've already delineated my valid arguments).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:13:56 2011 No.3365526 >>3365516 monopolies, expect in a few industries, are illegal you fucking retard

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:14:56 2011 No.3365532

>>3365499
Perhaps not directly, but through coercion, fraud and harassment, they do. Not to mention actual slave labor, that still exists in parts of the world (that aren't communist or socialist). I'm talking about people who didn't recieve any kind of education. I don't think it's fair to claim they have as much a choice concerning their skill as producers as a high-educated first-world person does. You can always claim "yeah they can let themselves and their families starve to death in they want to", and I gotta agree with this point - capitalism does allow people to starve to death.

But, again, you seem to be overstating the role of the state in production control in an actual communist society. Production would happen not due to coercion, but due to an understanding of societal needs by its members.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:14:56 2011 No.3365533 >>3365526 Doesn't have anything to do with monopolies. If the culture as a whole is capitalist, then all resources will be owned, and a person forced into capitalist servitude in order to live.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:14:56 2011 No.3365534

>>3365521

Why? You say these things like they're self evident. Why do I need to give you the right to work in your self interest if it is in my self interest to enslave you?

I mean you could have brought up property rights if you demonstrated that it was in my self interest to respect property rights. But you didn't.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:15:56 2011 No.3365539

>>3365512

>and you live in a third world country, that you know these things. Or are you parroting some idiot who sees things in a skewed view. <sic>
That does not change his premise, or affect any part of his reason at all. On seeing everything with colored glasses, it probably worse than that guy visualizes thinking about the third world. After all we don't have many sudanese posters yet. We'll never know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:16:56 2011 No.3365545 Oh look, the proletariat is whining about wages again. Cool story bro.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:17:56 2011 No.3365549

>>3365505
You're missing the point. He's not saying that theft is just. Only that it's in his self interest. Which it obviously is. Property rights has no bearing on this because one theft is not going to change the way society looks upon property rights. Unless you're going to argue that we need government to change people's self-interests with fear of jail time. In which case the government should be able to send you to jail for not paying your taxes which go to supporting the needy.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:17:56 2011 No.3365550

>>3365517
People do not exit poverty overnight. Wealth is created its not inherent, these countries need to work through their own poverty. Sweatshops and the like are just strawmen. They are a necessary step just like an agrarian society would be a necessary step to industrialization.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:17:56 2011 No.3365551

>>3365533
then don't have children. my ex best friends was poor as fuck, he started going to college, drop out, and guess what he did next? had a child! sorry maybe you think everyone that's born is a capitalist slave but some people make it work for them and some don't. you're obviously one of those who couldn't quite make it work.

inb4 baaah capitalism isn't fair though

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:17:56 2011 No.3365552 >>3365264 You're right. All theft is wrong. Way to think like a 10 year old.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:18:56 2011 No.3365555 >>3365551 That's a terrible argument. Injustice occurs, therefore don't fight it, just let it oppress everyone. Yeah, that's stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:18:56 2011 No.3365556 >>3365517 motherfucker you do know americans, even the white ones, experienced similar situations to those at one point in history right

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:20:56 2011 No.3365563 >>3365532 >capitalism does allow people to starve to death. NO, people allow themselves to starve to death.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:21:56 2011 No.3365568 >>3365552 Theft purely out of considerations for your personal pleasure. Happy now?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:21:56 2011 No.3365570

>>3365551
If you're arguing against that point, i'd say you are retarded. Just arguing against that at all.

But you're yelling against the wrong poster, gladly i saw and scooped it up to return this reply this to your shallow eyes.

So if i was an orphan you'd let me die?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:22:56 2011 No.3365571 File: 89 KB, 400x525, yaomingtldr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >pic related

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:24:56 2011 No.3365577

>>3365522
Perhaps if you see each country as an isolated microcosmos, and ignore the relations between countries, and how even one country can explore another country through a capitalist relationship.

First world countries have lower wage disparities, be they called capitalist or socialist. Third world countries have greater wage disparities, even if they call themselves communist, with two exceptions. What actually brings a country closer to communism, you ask - ideology or wage disparity?

I'm suggesting a communist world where wage disparity doesn't exist, and looking at the data, this is closer to Norway than to Cuba.

The data might not show that countries that call themselves communist have better living conditions than those that call themselves capitalist, but it does show that countries that behave closer to communism do.

You're doing a great job criticizing countries that called themselves communist during the XXth century, but they have little to do with actual communism. They were simply ideologically-based dictatorships that differ very little from fascism. Leaders in this countries empoverished the countries while they accumulated wealth.

>>3365512
And why are these views skewed?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:26:56 2011 No.3365583

>>3365533
>then all resources will be owned, and a person forced into capitalist servitude in order to live

So once again we are arguing for theft. If they are not owned why bother making anything other people will take the things you make. No point in producing more food than you can eat because you can't benefit from selling it. So you have to be forced into servitude to provide to other instead of doing it in your own self interest and volition. Your entire idea is layed waste into tribalsim.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:26:56 2011 No.3365586

>>3365570
yes, as a matter of fact i would. two people brought into this world. it's their moral, legal, biological, whatever duty to take of you. not mine. you'll have a hard time trying to convince a large quantity of rational minds that my point of view is 'wrong' i also think you'll have a hard time convincing a large quantity rational minds that my point of view is even 'cold' or 'evil'

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:27:56 2011 No.3365588

>>3365532
> capitalism does allow people to starve to death.

congrats, you are making ridiculous shit up in order to maintain your personal beliefs.

please reflect on why the fuck you are doing this.

capitalism says NO such thing, any more than particles physics says people can starve to death.

it does not contradict capitalism to have some kind of state funded by taxation and/or altruism which guarantees human rights such as food to citizens.

you are demonizing something you clearly have no understand of and no other way to attack.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:28:56 2011 No.3365595 >>3365583 Capitalism is theft, or more precisely an outgrowth of slavery. And tribalism is far more successful at fulfilling human needs for everyone, not just the capitalist.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:29:56 2011 No.3365600

>http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/
>Robert Nozick, the philosophical father of libertarianism
>With libertarianism everywhere, it's hard to remember that as recently as the 1970s, it was nowhere to be found.

um yeah but that's wrong

see: John-Joseph Proudhon

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:30:56 2011 No.3365603

>>3365577
The only countries that are wealthy and have a small wage disparity are capitalist. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean a huge wage disparity. Capitalism brings the living standards of all people up, unless those people refuse to participate in commerce, but those people are free to do so. They are not free however to steal what other people make.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:31:56 2011 No.3365610

>>3365577
well, i'm just going to completely drop the whole 'africa is capitalist' thing because there is no cogent argument here worth talking about.

i actually find it a bit infuriating that you've said i'm appealing to history again, when i clearly explained to you that i wasn't, but rather i was talking about inherently implications of the philosophy; when you accepted this; and when the subject hasn't come up since. you're now making stuff up which i haven't said and i clarified i haven't said, and not responded to what i have said.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:31:56 2011 No.3365611

>>3365588
I do admit that I was poisoning the well there, but it was just to make a point. It's a simplification to claim that just because a worker has some control over the means of production in a capitalist society, he has choice over all subject. You seem to be an optimist if you don't believe that there is coercion in capitalist BECAUSE there is control over the means of production. Capitalism allows a worker the choice of not working at all, but that means he'll starve to death. Do you deny this? How is that choice any different than the strawman you're presenting communism as - where the worker has the choice of not working, but that means he'll be killed by the authoritarian state? (But again, this isn't part of the nature of communism)

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:33:56 2011 No.3365618

>>3365595
>And tribalism is far more successful at fulfilling human needs for everyone

I'm sure those tribalist out there live in better conditions than the rest of us. I'm sure they have better healthcare, food, and shelter.

Obviously you have been brainwashed beyond the point of reason

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:35:56 2011 No.3365634
File: 10 KB, 300x300, 1309853108624.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3365586
If fucked up shit happened causing you to fail achieving your goals, you deserve no chances at all? What gives you the right to empower yourself then.
Please note that this the second time i ask this question and i'd like to hear it.

There will always have to be manual laborers, what makes you think a populace of "self-empowered biwinner managers" could set up a working society? What makes you think you are not born a wageslave?

Assuming your parents died due to the stress caused by raising an overly demanding autistic cold piece of shit, do you deserve a chance at tthe age of 12?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:36:56 2011 No.3365641 >>3365618 They do, actually. You are just too enculturated to understand this.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:36:56 2011 No.3365642

>>3365603
True, and that's to be expected from the way society evolves, but it does stand that they're closer to the communist ideal than so-called communist stated that have bigger wage disparities. Besides, these "capitalist" countries you praise got their wage disparities so low by applying socialist agenda, as it became popular to do so in the first half of the XXth century. Before that, even the United States was what would be today considered a third world country.

>>3365610
You mentioned Cuba, China, Russia, et cetera. That's why I'm mentioning them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:37:56 2011 No.3365643 File: 10 KB, 126x96, 1300421542934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3365641

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:38:56 2011 No.3365654 >>3365643 Yeah, your argument looks pretty stupid when it's reflected back to you, huh?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:38:56 2011 No.3365655

>>3365611
>Capitalism allows a worker the choice of not working at all, but that means he'll starve to death. Do you deny this?

And if you aren't forced to breath you to will also die.

He doesn't have to work for someone to feed himself he can work for himself, grow his own food. He can pick garbage bins, eat restaurant leftovers, he can receive charity.

>where the worker has the choice of not working, but that means he'll be killed by the authoritarian state?

I never said that. All that will happen is that he will be fed at the expense of another person without their consent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:39:56 2011 No.3365658 >>3365655 >He doesn't have to work for someone to feed himself he can work for himself, grow his own food. Unless of course all land is owned.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:39:56 2011 No.3365661 >>3365641 Also capitalism doesn't prevent you from living in a tribe.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:39:56 2011 No.3365662

>>3365611
...bro, you just made the same mistake all over again. i just explained to you that capitalism says absolutely nothing about human rights. why have you totally ignored that and continued to make the same baseless attack rather than coming up with a proper one..? communism doesn't say anything about human rights either. they are both a class of models to be used IN CONJUNCTION with other social philosophies. for example, i support libertarianism because i believe it's immoral to encroach upon somebody's free will (by threatening him with forced imprisonment if he doesn't give you what you want), but i also believe that there are various human rights which trump this and which the man is obliged to provide (such as a right not to starve). in other words, i believe in capitalism, but i also believe in a strong constitution universally protecting the rights of the population (providing food, health, a justice system et al).

and you talk about straw men...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:40:56 2011 No.3365663 >>3365654 I wasn't the person you where arguing with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:41:56 2011 No.3365669 >>3365661 Tribal economies are not capitalistic. They wouldn't stand for that shit. >>3365663 whoops.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:46:56 2011 No.3365687

>>3365634
i posted this response earlier. you have no right to force someone to help someone else. you're also assuming everyone has set in stone morals that don't allow for exceptions. i said i wouldn't help you if you were a starving orphan but that was on principal. that was a lie of fucking course i would help, however my willingness to do will change drastically if there is some self righteous communist in the picture preaching/trying to force me to do so.

if i'm at the age of 12, which i'm not. i'm not in any position to decide if i deserve a chance to survive am i?

my right to empower myself comes from my ability to blow you're fucking brains out with a shotgun if you try to physically force me to do anything i don't want to. and you're right to empower yourself to make an attempt to force another to something they don't want to do stems from the same brute force. difference is, you probably want risk your own life to make me help you help someone else.

i acknowledge that i am born a wage slave and have also come to the conclusion that there are no other system that i would rather be born into. i also understand that being a wage 'enslaver' is an attainable goal. and making choices that will enable me to increase the wages which i slave for are in reach as well. and guess the fuck what? i aint even mad

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:46:56 2011 No.3365688

>>3365642
>United States was what would be today considered a third world country.

Well duh but there weren't greater super powers in the world than America and Europe at that time, you can't compare them to today.

>got their wage disparities so low by applying socialist agenda

Wrong, we enacted social agendas when capitalism had created enough wealth to enact them, but considering welfare rewards people for failure it causes them to stay in poverty rather then to try to pull themselves out of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:46:56 2011 No.3365693 >>3365082 I have a business deal for you then. I always have monstrous turds, they are usually 7-10 inches long at ~6" around. I will sell you my turds for $0.75 an ounce to polish.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:48:56 2011 No.3365701

>>3365655
Good points, and that's (the right to self-sustenance) part of the ideology of some left-leaning groups, like the brazillian no-land movement or, in the form of terrorism, the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia. Still, it stands to point - what if he can't afford the land to grow his own food? What if there's no charity to go around? What if people cover their trashcans with lead? There are some instances where people have no control over their enviroment.

I understand your point at the claim that is "unfair" that someone who doesn't work is fed by someone who does, without his consent. But this has a lot to do with the nature of communist ideology - in a true communist state, refusing to work like that would be considered more akin to a disease than to a choice, given that it's in human nature to occupy oneself with an useful trade. This is akin to what's happening in many parts of the world in respect to the homeless - they're status is seen as a consequence of mental disease or social misfortune, and they recieve help being reintegrated to society. I don't think it's scientific to think that homelessness is a choice.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:49:56 2011 No.3365713

>>3364052
lol you cock are you a troll? I'm going to err on the side of caution and wasting time and say you're not.
1. Few if any libertarians claim that all rich people get that way because they work. Politicians tend to be rich, and yet many of them are career politicians and former lawyers and shit who produced little of value but extract disproportionate gains from society. A lot of people get rich because of political influence. Some people get rich because they inherit wealth. The latter, however, is far more deserved because people with inheritances tend to do more with their money and they may have received it from people who did input huge amounts of value.
1.5. Someone whose wealth stems from actually providing value to consumers (and therefore society) shouldn't have their wealth seized at gun point just to subsidize people who breed irresponsibly or for some public good that can easily be solved without invoking deus ex machina (i.e. the state). It is not unreasonable to assume that charities would exist in a total emergent market because they exist currently despite the fact that the central state is assumed to be the primary welfare or charity provider.
2. Entry barriers don't exist? I still can't tell if you're trollan broseph. Regulation compliance alone costs almost one and a half trillion dollars in the US economy annually. There's a reason corporations with large market shares lobby for regulations tailored to their extant practices: it renders the competition no longer competitive because now profits are deeply cut and in fact raising prices may be absolutely necessary for smaller competitors to remain afloat. Meanwhile, gargantuan firms like Wal-Mart can assume the burden of regulations because the marginal cost is lower.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:52:56 2011 No.3365720

3. "Cartels don't exist." haha lolololol
4. Privatization is not the same as a free market. Dick fucks who mention that refer to a state-enforced monopoly of some private firm. No libertarians that I know of support privatization.
5. There's a decent correlation of wealth and intelligence. Is it absolute causation? No. From what I remember, the correlation is about 0.55. Hence poor people on aggregate are less intelligent than wealthier people. It doesn't matter how many intelligent poor folks you or any single individual knows. That isn't how shit works.
6. Mises and Hayek actually contributed to economics. Whatever your opinions, you probably think highly of the Nobel awards and Hayek recieved an award right after Mises died so that the cocksuckers on the committee didn't have to recognize Mises' contributions. The award came the very next year following Mises' death. Coinkyfuckindink? Think not. My suspicion is that this is because Hayek supported central banking (at least as far as I recall), albeit with hard currency that held gold and silver reserves. Mises did not. They were right, among other things, about the socialist calculation problem - that's something Soviet planners were all too familiar with themselves.
7. The current economic paradigm is nothing like a total market. For one thing, there would be more competition as a general rule across all industries. Property would not be held permanently in absentia (this is primarily concerning land); there would be usage and maintenance requirements to hold property. Regulations would be from within the market, driven by demand and so forth and not some attempt to impose controls from without the market. There would be no substance prohibition and prostitution would be legal in most if not all [stateless] areas.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:55:56 2011 No.3365734
File: 21 KB, 386x359, 1292804558530.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3365687
I have not read this shit, i don't have to. I got to post a hamster in a karate pose. I found it myself at 2chan.
I had fun. I'm not even a real communist, i just want to see a culture reset in current politics, management and banking. It isn't working and everyones too stubborn/greedy to admit it. Keep bailin boys, FED keeps printan, you've reached the tipping point. That aside;

Those were the most subtle insults i've ever directed at anyone, like i said, i had fun. Key was you raging so hard you replied to the wrong guy. I still feel for your mother.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:59:56 2011 No.3365755

>>3365662
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what capitalism and communism are. You're talking about human rights, but you don't talk about who's going to provide these rights. It seems to me that you want capitalism "on top" of socialism - that is, you want enough equality in pay so that nobody starves, but on top of that you want there to be "higher paying" trades that would allow one to purchase superfluous goods. I have no problem with that if you want to call that capitalism, but what you consider to be human rights are economic rights (not starving) that in my opinion, can only be achieved worldwide through the institution of communism.

I guess the problem is we have both different opinions on what communism and capitalism are. I look at underdeveloped nations where work standarts are practically slave work due to a pure application of capitalist ideology.

You're saying you believe in a government that provides health. Does that mean you're for healthcare reform?

>>3365688
>Wrong, we enacted social agendas when capitalism had created enough wealth to enact them, but considering welfare rewards people for failure it causes them to stay in poverty rather then to try to pull themselves out of it.

Then why did poverty diminish in the XXth century? I agree with you that capitalism should produce the wealth first so it can be "shared" (that's why I said we're not in the right moment in history for a communist revolution), but if it wasn't for the ennacting of this agenda, the wealth would just be accumulated while poverty would spread as the population grew.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:01:56 2011 No.3365771

>>3364284
Keynesianism is bullshit, and economists and people with an ounce of sense know it. Keynes was a court philosopher generating economics that appealed to central planners of a social democratic or what we might call fascist sort (national socialism works too). Economic progress is not driven by consumption; nor was it ever. Consumption is necessary, but consumption is assumed. Deferred consumption - saving - and investing savings are not assumed and are the backbone of any economic progress and growth. Marx knew this for fuck's sake, and the poor guy believed in the Labor Theory of Value.

>>3364425
There would probably be insurance pools, most of them non-profit organizations where people who chip in would have guarantees for aid if they ever undergo any massive medical emergencies. Most people wouldn't bother using insurance for anything other than emergencies I imagine. But you're quite right that there would be more doctors per capita, more sensible and less intrusive regulations, and a legal system that didn't cater to the amount of frivolous or outright fraudulent malpractice suits that plague doctors right now.

>>3365082
This guy has the right of it:
>>3365074
There's no reason that labor qua labor should be valued. Every system is unfair. Some "good" people will get fucked invariably, and of course some "scummy" or "bad" people will rise higher. That's the shit of life. If you have something like communism, which works only on a familial or tribal level, and you project that onto millions of people uniformly you will get lower living standards for all and some bureaucrats or figureheads who keep a little extra for themselves. It's just that on aggregate for most societies the best thing for people will tend to be total markets.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:02:56 2011 No.3365774

>>3365701
>I don't think it's scientific to think that homelessness is a choice.

It is because they explicitly chose not to do anything to prevent it.

>what if he can't afford the land to grow his own food? What if there's no charity to go around? What if people cover their trashcans with lead? There are some instances where people have no control over their enviroment.

What if there is no one to steal food from?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:04:56 2011 No.3365781 >>3365774 I hope you develop schizophrenia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:06:56 2011 No.3365787 >>3365774 What are you doing in /sci/? Sorry, but this discussion is over. I didn't realize I was arguing with a complete moron.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:06:56 2011 No.3365793

>>3365755
I agree with you that capitalism should produce the wealth first so it can be "shared" (that's why I said we're not in the right moment in history for a communist revolution),

Wealth can't be shared without destroying what makes it. The act of sharing it will thereby destroy the wealth that was accumulated. If you redistribute the products and people use them who will make them again, the companies that did just went out of business cause all of them were seized.

>but if it wasn't for the ennacting of this agenda, the wealth would just be accumulated while poverty would spread as the population grew.

Thats a baseless assumption, you can't accumulate wealth without paying for people to work for you. You have to compensate them and thereby make them more wealthy in order to become wealthy your self.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:08:56 2011 No.3365801 >>3365787 >>3365781 What if a person is unable to provide food for himself? What if he is unable to grow it himself and there is no one he can take food from?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:25:56 2011 No.3365896 We should just have a ceiling income: 10 000usd/month maximum, more and it goes to schools and hospital. Fuck you all and your consumeristic dream (nightmare).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:27:56 2011 No.3365899 >>3365774 >2011 >he still thinks people have free will HAHAHAHAHAHA are you for real? Moron.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:28:56 2011 No.3365909

Capitalism assigns the value of profit to the organizers (those who own and plan) of capital.

The level of profit could be 'unfair', but this concept has no place in free market economics. In fact, economics has very little to say about distribution in general.

It's strange to hear US/western europeans complaining about unfair distribution. Why is it that those countries command such wealth? Is it because they have higher IQs or work harder? Is it due to those peoples deserving the consumption of more resources? If you're really concerned with equality among people, then perhaps you should actually consider all people first.

If such an equitable distribution were to happen, all of you would have a reduction in the standard of living that you currently enjoy.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:30:56 2011 No.3365921

>>3365774
You didn't chose anything , idiot, your parents chose for you, external events chose for you.
I dare you to prove me you made ONE choice in your whole life . One choice that wasn't driven by your past experiences . You can't. No free will. No choice. People do not really choose to be homeless, they experienced a life that led them to be.
The idea of a choice is a complete illusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:30:56 2011 No.3365927 >>3364052 I hate this filthy, dumb race.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:32:56 2011 No.3365935 >>3365921 So? /goes and eats some cake

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:34:56 2011 No.3365939

>>3365909
>all of you would have a reduction in the standard of living that you currently enjoy.

I'm ok with that.
I hope TV could disappear.
I only need one good knife and nature to be happy. Fuck your ipod, fuck your sony shit, fuck your watches, shoes, suits. Fuck all that, it's void and alienating for the human mind.
Seriously, we aren't happy. We aren't happy at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:35:56 2011 No.3365949 >>3365935 So. No choice= no blame So people like you need to start and use their brains for a change instead of relying on the "ITS YOUR CHOICE LOL DIE NOW" There are no choices, only a chain of events.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:40:56 2011 No.3365970
File: 76 KB, 889x311, missionaccomplished.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You have to work smart as well as work hard, so actually it is partially their fault.

Before you throw a hissy fit let me just say that accepting an unfortunate aspect of reality is not the same as supporting it, accepting reality is also the best means of figuring out how to change it which means accepting facts that you find emotionally discomforting.

I'm not saying it's justified for people to work so hard and earn next to nothing, I'm not saying there are no factors out of their control that put people at a disadvantage, I'm not saying libertarianism is right about everything, I'm not saying the time and resources needed to work smart are easy to come by for someone living in crippling poverty, however considering the past 200 years of technological advancement which has lifted many countries from serfdom to educated middle class 1st worlders it can be concluded that a person's own actions are by far the biggest factor affecting their material conditions for most adults in most places most of the time.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:41:56 2011 No.3365972

>>3365949
> confusing 'choice uniquely determined by previous events' with 'choice not made'
> in 2011

let me explain it to you. you were always going to develop into a person with lax morals. you were always going to choose to shoot that man. you were always going to be tried in court and found guilty.

doesn't mean you don't have lax morals. doesn't mean you didn't make the choice. doesn't mean you're not going to prison.

brb, choosing to go and get more cake. i was always going to choose that but i don't give a shit.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:50:56 2011 No.3366007

>>3365972
No, you don't understand causality and environmental influence in personality develoipment. You need to read more neuroscience.

EXternal influences gives you "cards" to play, you don't chose them. With these cards in hands, you have to make "choices" that is , using these cards you have the more logically you can. If you were raised with parents that don't give a fuck about you, about school, about anything, chances are that you will end up a poor, uneducated "parasite".

You have no real choices. Never. It is a delusion. Human beings are data collecting machines, they just analyse, shape and use the data they have, trough experiences they have 0 control over.

Actually, you can't blame people for anything. To blame is ridiculous and is a typical religious mechanism.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:52:56 2011 No.3366012

>>3365972
How can you say someone has "lax morale" hence is bad and/or deserves his current state when you keep on saying "you were always going to develop into a person with"
So, they have no choice but it's their fault?

Are you evezn trying to pretend to be intelligent? Or are you 15 ?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:55:56 2011 No.3366028

>>3366007
'choice' refers to our brain's considering what to do based on its developmental influences etc.

everybody is conscious of this action. everybody knows what it is. you may as well try to philosophize away your own thoughts.

again, just because there was only one outcome, doesn't mean the process of contemplation based on the content of your brain didn't happen.

what on earth do you think is 'you' if not the result of your individual development due to your environment? patently that IS you, and that is what is causally responsible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:56:56 2011 No.3366039 >>3366012 > unaware that soft determinism is an extremely common position held by many professional philosophers > 15

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:57:56 2011 No.3366048 >>3366039 >>3366028 You're both wrong. Just think about any choice you made. Now try and convince you it has nothing to do with your past . Sorry, you're wrong. YTou aren't really individuals, you are meat puppets. Now feed, fuck and die, puppet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:59:56 2011 No.3366058 >>3366028 There is no "you" and "me" . First. Second, you cannot make any choice that will defy the logical choice you have to make considering your past experiences. Stop arguing please, you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:00:56 2011 No.3366065 >>3366028 >again, just because there was only one outcome Ther fact that there is only one outcome clearly shows that free will is an illusion. Well, it's clear if you aren't a dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:01:56 2011 No.3366069 >>3366058 > believes he doesn't exist > totally unable to comprehend the relatively simple point presented to him > 'you can't make a choice defying your choice thus you don't make a choice' > 'you're stupid' > in 2011

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:02:56 2011 No.3366073 >>3366048 also unable to understand simple post

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:02:56 2011 No.3366080 >>3366039 >>3366028 How does it feel to be intellectually inferior? I don't blame you tho, we do not have the same recorded experiences. Just try and ignore your ego for once and just admit you were wrong. Evolve. Take this chance !

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:03:56 2011 No.3366085 >>3366065 > implying i haven't already understood his point and presented a rebuttal > making the point again and again > in 2011

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:03:56 2011 No.3366089 File: 59 KB, 288x396, 1246951428281.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >people on /sci/ who want to abandon all technology to give a bunch of people in Africa food that they will simply eat and starve after they refuse to grow any of their own.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:04:56 2011 No.3366096 >>3366069 >>3366073 Hi morons. Not your fault, you did not have the curiosity to search and read about all this stuff. See, you did NOT HAVE, this is not about a choice, this is about having different cards in hands.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:04:56 2011 No.3366098 >>3366080 > How does it feel to be intellectually inferior? > implying i haven't already given this lots of thought and a bunch of /sci/fags evading my point has made me think otherwise inb4 another ten rounds of BUT UR DECESUN WUZ ALWEYS GUN HAPEN?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:05:56 2011 No.3366103 >>3366085 >rebutal I saw nothing of this nature.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:07:56 2011 No.3366109

>>3365114
No, that's not how shit works. Even now, in the more highly cartelized industries, capitalists take maybe four to twelve percent of profits or so. They are by no means taking the majority of the earnings, even when I would contend that they are exploiting because they are able to limit competition and so forth. The thing is that three percent of two hundred million dollars in revenue is a lot of money for one or three or eight people, but not for two thousand. Smart companies tend to reinvest a large portion of the profit to keep competitive.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:07:56 2011 No.3366111

>>3366098
>implying i haven't already given this lots of thought

It seems it hasn't helped you a lot. Or that I thought about it much more than you.

Nah, not possible, you are the best dude, nobody can be right against you. Youuuuuuuu.

Ego driven meat puppet. You're pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:07:56 2011 No.3366112 >>3366103 here bro: >>3366028 come at me. or of course keep making the same point and don't respond to this one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:09:56 2011 No.3366114 >>3366112 >stating there was only one outcome >then states that free will exists Are you really that stupid? Or that scaried to realize you're only a carbon based robot?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:09:56 2011 No.3366116 >people don't have free will therefore they must be enslaved

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:09:56 2011 No.3366118 >>3366111 > three ad hominems > zero responses > in 2011

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:10:56 2011 No.3366129 >>3366118 Responses there are. Only you're too deep in your own shit, in your own egomaniac trip to be able to understand basic logic.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:13:56 2011 No.3366139

>>3366114
> implying when i realise this i'm suddenly gonna be all O SHI I CAN'T STOP MY LEGS MOVING
> actually thinks it makes any sense to say that he can't stop his legs moving

answer me bro: a choice is neural activity based on the environmental events that developed you, right? and 'you' refers to the result of that development, right? and, indubitably, it is this process that is causally responsible for the action, right?

so you made a choice. cave johnson is done here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:13:56 2011 No.3366141 >>3366112 >again, just because there was only one outcome, >free will Talking about shooting a bullet in his own foot..

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:14:56 2011 No.3366143 >>3366129 quote one bro.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:14:56 2011 No.3366147 >>3364052 what the hell, op?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:14:56 2011 No.3366149 >>3366141 > 10th fag incapable of reading rest of post

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:15:56 2011 No.3366152

>>3366139
Nope. You just reached the logical conclusion given your precedent stored datas/experiences.

No choice. Only logical conclusion.
Also, "you" make no choice. You brain fires before you're even conscious to think or to chose.

But I don't think you will understand what it implies, it seems you have insufficient data or a specific psychonevrosis that keeps you from willing to understand.
Meat puppet.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:17:56 2011 No.3366159

It seems to me that like communism a capitalistic society could work in theory. However, corruption which looks to be a normal part of the human mind causes the leaders of that society to take steps to benefit themselves, when they do this it unbalances things and causes the population to be exploited because of that. In a fair and just society all these outcomes of government would turn out fair and just but that is simply not ever going to be the case. And as for human choice it may not exist but human ego and humans being able to effect the world around them exists to a smaller degree, causing there to be some small amount of change that we can enact upon our own timeline. So it ends up in my eyes that a society will have corrupt leaders, but in a anarchist society human corruption and problems will still exist but at least to an equal degree.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:17:56 2011 No.3366160

>>3365138
LOL? Real communism has been done ad nauseam. Most pre-agricultural societies were essentially communistic, and so were small agricultural families and tribes. Communism works at that scale where social pressures work as incentives along with the natural obligation people tend to feel to work with those they are intimately familiar with. It doesn't work on impersonal scales of hundreds of thousands or millions. Then commerce and market transactions are necessary.

>>3365167
That's not true. Non-hierarchical firms would be more prevalent in a total market. It's patently obvious that capitalists in some industries have indeed overstayed their welcome and, as a general rule, are not necessary for the efficient allocation of resources in firms in these relevant industries. But capitalists have their role and it is a necessary one. Capitalists in a total market are people who are clever enough to foresee consumer demand before others or fuel highly innovative production practices. Non-hierarchical firms have their place in generally more established industries.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:18:56 2011 No.3366169 >>3366152 > implying he his not his brain > cartesian theater > in 2000 and fucking 11 shape up amateurfags ffs. i'm gonna need something more than the aesthetic appeal of edgy nihilism.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:18:56 2011 No.3366170

I'm skipping all but the first and last posts to say I hope you're having a good night and that you realize you just argued with trolls and/or idiots instead of doing something fun for Saturday night. If these threads accomplished anything we wouldn't keep having them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:21:56 2011 No.3366184 >>3366170 You're right. I stopped arguing when I realized that. Still, I could've spent this time playing videogames. >feelsbadman.jpg

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:22:56 2011 No.3366188

>>3366149
>>3366143
>>etc

You're conceived = no choice here
You're born= no choice here
You scream for food = no choice here
You shit yourself= no choice here
Your parents impregnates you with their personality and philosophy of life (values, morales etc) = no choice here
Stuff happens to you = no choice here
Depending on how stuff happened, on how the outcome was judged (following precedently, unconsciously - no choice- stored experiences) you will make a logical "choice" (logical in regard of said past experiences) = still no choice here.
You eat= no choice (natural urges)
You fuck = no choice (natural urges)
You die = no choice

You have Zero choice. You're an effect, not a cause.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:23:56 2011 No.3366191

>>3365152
People would work for wages, ideally, because it's a lot easier and less risky than starting a firm or being themselves serious capitalists. Holding capital is by its nature far riskier and demands serious savings to build up to any significant investment.

>>3365172
yeah yeah yeah mah nigga

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:24:56 2011 No.3366192 >>3366169 > mention well known published philosophy > suddenly 10 minutes' silence as every other rebel teen /sci/fag checks out wikipedia

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:26:56 2011 No.3366204 >>3366192 >implying I need people from 200 years ago to understand simple logic Derp. I despise philosophy, it is a pseudo science based on semantics. It is devoid of any meaning.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:26:56 2011 No.3366207 >>3366188 > you will make a logical "choice" > no choice fuck it, you fags are just appalling at this and it has literally gone nowhere since my first reply. going to bed now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:27:56 2011 No.3366210 >>3366192 Someone is trying to compensate for violent butt pain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:28:56 2011 No.3366215 >>3366207 >"choice" Can't you into quotation marks?

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:30:56 2011 No.3366221

>>3366204
> implying all the philosophical arguing he's been doing was totally meaningless

ok, congratulations on rebelling against your parents and discovering atheism and finding the universe mute of meaning and all that edgy stuff, but those of us who figured that out in our youths are stepping outside now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:36:56 2011 No.3366249 >>3366221 Ooooh, now the kid is trying to appear superior. Oooh yes son, you are old ! And so wise ! Nah, scratch that, you're a 18year old faggot and your opinions are worth shit. The fact is: you're an ignorant monkey.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:37:56 2011 No.3366253 this is too futuristic.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:38:56 2011 No.3366256

>>3364368
You don't make money by knowing things. Tons of very smart people die with relatively little or sometimes no money (look at Tesla). The ones that make money are the most cunning and the ones with the least morals, combined with knowing the right people.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:49:56 2011 No.3366307

>>3365311
Exactly. They're like, "Capitalism is so inhumane! If someone can't work, then they'll starve!"

No, there are charities for people who are disabled. People who can work can do some menial, very slightly productive act (not digging ditches and refilling them; that's Keynesian shit). They can then get some welfare moolah to be able to sustain a livable lifestyle. If someone doesn't want to work but is able, then yeah, they either have a family to support them or they fuckin starve. Otherwise you incentivise mass free riding by any fuck with a heart full of sloth and everything shuts down because thirty or forty percent of the population can't maintain a nice lifestyle for the whole population of any given large society. And guess what? Communists would let anyone who won't work but is able starve. Outright. They wouldn't even want the families to allow these people to mooch off them. Fuckin hypocritical dick retards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:51:56 2011 No.3366314 >>3366188 I chose to not fap today. I can control my urges. Therefore, I have choice.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:54:56 2011 No.3366324 >>3366314 You didn't chose anything. You had lower libido (you don't control this)

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 00:56:56 2011 No.3366331

>>3366314
Think of all the other days you fapped. You didn't had the idea (envy) to not fap.
Today, you didn't have a strong enough envy to fap, so the idea to not fap emerged.

No really bro, you have no free will at all. Not a single bit of free will. Complete illusion.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:11:56 2011 No.3366382

>>3365373
You fucking retards. "CAPITALIZM IZ SO EVUL"

Then you insult people by categories setup within the capitalist system. Are you capable of realizing the full breadth of your stupidity, or need I spell it out to you?

>>3365921
And people do not "choose" to be successful by that metric either. You're setting up a standard to which no "choice" will emerge as a coherent concept. Choices, however, ARE coherent when you're not doing linguistic bumblefuckery because the number of variables involved in any complex action are far too numerous to be calculated to any real degree of certainty. So because I can't examine the exact nature of the causal chain that leads to what a person eventually does and becomes, I prescribe the end result to the person's choices primarily. It doesn't matter that free will is analytically untrue, because in use it is an incredibly useful heuristic and the only way we can practically function at all.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:29:56 2011 No.3366431

>>3365475
Doubtful. If all property norms disintegrated, you'd need some friends with a lot of martial force to avoid getting fucked by mobs of looters. Thankfully, that's never going to happen unless we assume some cataclysmic event.

>>3365419
Fuck. Wading through all of the stupidity here is laborious. You might be trolling, but anyway, here goes: Blackwater owes its entire existence and its life blood not to private contracts with individuals or groups of individuals in the market, but the state. It exists within this corporatist paradigm, which is almost the very antithesis of anything libertarians advocate.

>>3365522
Actually, I'd say that third-world countries tend to be socialistic or even communistic. Few to none of them are liberal economically or socially.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:38:56 2011 No.3366452 regarding the more extreme, total-deregulatory type of libertarian thinking we see so much of around here, I agree with you whole-heartedly, OP in after dozens of post complaining that it's still completely valid because TAXES IS STEALING on principle

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:45:56 2011 No.3366480 >Cartels, oligopolies and monopolies, and above all barriers to entry simply do not exist. but these things do exist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:47:56 2011 No.3366488 >>3364052 >>but these things do exist I think that was the point OP was making

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:58:56 2011 No.3366527 >>3366452 Except that regulations ar like this guys said >>3366480 Barriers to entry, corporation write regulations to keep competition away.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:59:56 2011 No.3366530 File: 32 KB, 354x354, LiberFD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i love posting this...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 02:01:56 2011 No.3366536 >>3366488 that libertarians believe that something that exists doesn't exist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 02:08:56 2011 No.3366551 >>3366530 >implying i can't install sprinklers

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 02:10:56 2011 No.3366564 >>3366536 My guess is that it was reductio ad absurdam. But you might well be too dumb to understand what that is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 02:15:56 2011 No.3366579 >>3366536 >>that libertarians believe that something that exists doesn't exist? I believe that was his assertion, yes

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 03:51:56 2011 No.3366870

Caveat: I categorize myself as a "little-L libertarian" leaning American liberal. My political beliefs are informed by and large by my economics background meaning they are too complex to be fit conveniently onto a spectrum. What cannot be justified by my science comes from books like A Theory of Justice.

Many libertarians are idiotic economic zealots. In the sense that even when the government can intervene and improve on an inefficient outcome or begin to nudge private spending toward a pareto efficient outcome, they still diametrically oppose it on "philosophical" (aka bullshit) grounds. Yet they will always try and jump to the science of economics to justify policy they do like. Even if it means turning to discredited and antiquated, controversial, and highly dubious notions like the Laffer curve. Theres no true academic economic justification for the gold standard (a polite euphemism for dismantling currency markets and pegging it to pure volatility aka commodity markets, also fixing the money supply/turn it over to prospecting companies) or "ending the Fed" but they resort to discredited branches of politically-philosophical anti-empirical right wing economics which do not verify with science.

In effect they try to make themselves out to be economic golden boys but they make just as little economic sense as the hardcore liberals do. Politics is fucking stupid for this reason; everyone has shitty beliefs that have little if any rational scientific basis. The truth is so much harder than either of the narratives and requires a lot of reading of research.

a lot of research and reading of empirical studies in academic journals, and forming complex political views off that.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 03:55:56 2011 No.3366879

>>3366870
>In the sense that even when the government can intervene and improve on an inefficient outcome or begin to nudge private spending toward a pareto efficient outcome

Because its theft and because if it needs government assistance it's not worth doing or not ready to be done at least, it leads to mal investment and creates entities which will fail when support is removed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 04:06:56 2011 No.3366911 >>3365264 Robin Hood says fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 04:06:56 2011 No.3366913 >>3366870 >economics background >science

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 04:22:56 2011 No.3366956 >>3366579 >>3366579 Well anyone who believes the economy exists is irrevocably mad and insane.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 05:00:56 2011 No.3367066

>>3366879
See this is all a fat pant load. You entered the American social contract by choice the instant you chose to live here despite having information about possible alternatives. Either you are irrational for consciously choosing to live someplace terrible which steals from you every time you make a transaction, or you honestly don't give enough of a shit about is so-called theft (protip; membership/contract fees != theft) because your benefit actually outweighs your cost.

Now onto the other load you have graced my post with; government investment has for example been shown across a number of developed countries to correlate with private capital stock K increases up to a ratio of 1% government investment to 27% growth in K. Generalizing it all as malinvestment is so immature and naive; many private ventures don't have access to enough leverage or the same level of financing during credit crunches like 2008/9 that the public does. They can also be swept up in the environment of fear that pervades during such situations. Reasons like this cause them to be reluctant and pass up opportunities for investment which they might rationally undertake under a more optimistic economic landscape. Many people who were certainly good for the credit could not get it in 08, they were not malinvestments just victims of a temporary culture of fear.

The government is equally as capable as the private sector to make rational and successful investments. They have access to equally as much if not more information in some cases so asymmetry there is negligible. Yes they can have perverse incentives, but those incentives exist all over private companies; health insurance is the poster child for this.

Your response is indicative of the economic ignorance which plagues hardcore libertarian circles. Von Mises was not an economist, in fact he was a third-rate political philosopher.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 05:04:56 2011 No.3367077

>>3366913
It takes a much greater capacity for scientific rigor and understanding to study and contribute to economic theory than it does for many of the so-called "hard sciences." It's not like Psychology; to be taken seriously you can't just bullshit, and you need to grasp math beyond the level of a high schooler.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 05:07:56 2011 No.3367090 >>3367077 >translation, you need to always double the level of bullshit from the previous generation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 05:12:56 2011 No.3367109 >>3367090 >I failed intro Econ so I'm mad that smart people can grasp what I cant Don't worry, libertarians conjured up a bullshit school of economics that doesn't require any math or analysis, so tards like you could feel included in the discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 05:16:56 2011 No.3367120 >>3367109 >thinks anyone would waste their time learning about fairy tails and not call themselves theist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 05:22:56 2011 No.3367132 >>3367120 Fairy tails, huh? Yes, you are officially a retard. Case closed. Go back to studying your little geography now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 05:30:56 2011 No.3367154 >>3367066 The government has been supporting investment for how long with the FED and subsidies and it doesn't really work. All that money went into the dot com bubble and the housing market.

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 ]