[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.27910318 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Could there be such a Paladin as a LG Anarcho-Capitalist? A paladin that would uphold the laws of liberty as strictly as another paladin would uphold the laws of the state?

If you can be Lawful for the moral code of Anarcho-Capitalist Liberty then wouldn't it make sense that more Rogues and Rangers are LG than most people initially think?

Should there be a God of Voluntary Action and Non-Violence?

>> No.27910425

>A paladin that would uphold the laws of liberty

>> No.27910439

I do believe you are misinterpreting what paladins are supposed to uphold.
Also, Paladin of Freedom.

>> No.27910476

Not quite. Anarcho-Capitalist requires you to respect freedom, Lawful Goodness just requires that you respect liberty.

To draw a distinction, the Paladin thinks people should have the right to do anything, as long as it isn't Evil or against the [legitimate] Law. Which leaves a very wide area of acceptable action.

The Anarcho-Capitalist is required to permit any action that does not bring him harm, even if he is convinced it would hurt the practitioner, or have ill effects on the society in the long run.

So while it is technically possible to be a Lawful Good ACist [in the same way its technically possible to be a Lawful Good Marxist], this philosophy is one of those were eventually, something is gonna have to give between this and Lawful Goodness.

So to be a truly dedicated ACist, you'd be better off as a Chaotic Good or Neutral person.

>> No.27910485

> Anarcho-Capitalist
but that is a contradiction op

>> No.27910611

Yeah, the gentleman from Sword of Truth books.

Also this >>27910485
You can have capitalism or you can have anarchy. Not both.

>> No.27910621

I must question why not. If anything it seems capitalism would go better with anarchy then communism.

>> No.27910663

Look at these retard

>> No.27910664

Because capitalism requires solid and reliable legal framework and law enforcement to protect ownership rights and playability of debt. It requires organization the market participants adhere to. It requires a state, or an force that's indistinguishable from it in terms of authority.

>> No.27910675

what you niggers even think you're talking about?

>> No.27910677

Wrong. Capitalism is about voluntary interactions not regulated by a state. The freedom to buy and sell what you want at any time you want. Free of regulations of a state.

Same thing with Anarchy. It only makes sense.

>> No.27910697


AnCaps are corporatists with delusions, or anarchists with a transparent fig leaf.

>> No.27910703

Capatilism kind of relies on the backing of the state to hold people to the deals they make. In a free for all trade is likely to appear but a stronger party is always just going to take what they want without paying.

The ideal of communism is that everyone does what they want to do becuase they enjoy doing it. Such a society would in all likelyhood need little enforcment and could probaly be considered anarchic.

>> No.27910728

Corporations are inherently non-anarchy. Part of anarchy is private responsibility, and corporations are embodiment of state-like distribution of responsibility. So while companies can exist, corporations have no place in an anarcho-capitalist code.

>> No.27910731

Yeah, stay delusional.

>> No.27910733

So the ideal of communism doesn't need strong authority figures. What about the reality of communism?

>> No.27910737

The chief problem with anarcho-capitalism is when something ceases to function as a corporation and becomes a state in all but name. Read Snow Crash.

>> No.27910743

There is statist-communism and anarcho-communism just as there is statist-capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism doesn't have to be backed by the state, it's just that all examples in real life, so far, have been.

>> No.27910758

Who's John Galt?

>> No.27910786

if I ever met a anarcho-commie in real life I would be very tempted to slay it on the spot.

>> No.27910815

Communism doesn't mesh with reality.

>> No.27910836

Just ask them if they think the Venus Project is a good idea.

>> No.27910843

>as strictly as another paladin would uphold the laws of the state

I have no idea where the idea that Paladin = Police came about. That's not what they are in the slightest.

>> No.27910855

There's a big differences between various branches of Communism.

>> No.27910863


Instead of Detect Evil he has Detect Communism.

>> No.27910867

Yeah, well... It's not good.
The thing with Marx is it's all about differing perspectives over the course of history. Communism is what he thought will come after this current age of capatilism, which was just the current veiw that had replaced fedualism. We can no more imagine a communism then the fedual serf could imagine capatilism. Just as people of the future may look back on this time baffled by how people could live under such conditions. Personally I don't think there has been a true attempt at communism, humanity isn't currently capable of it (and may never be).

>> No.27910909

This is arrogant presumptuous bullshit. If the Men of the past were told about capitalism, they could have conceived of it. And if capitalism had happened and then evolved into a corporate Feudalism, men would say feudalism was the natural development.

The idea of a natural progression of social states from lesser to higher is nothing short of absurd. Men created institutions, or institutions formed themselves. That doesn't mean one was the natural progression from the other.

One of the great errors in modern thought is thinking that they are the only true civilized people ever, and that all the ancients were irrational violent shit-eaters.

As though the mere idea of an internal combustion engine would have blown Aristotle's mind. Arrogance is all it is.

>> No.27910926


Electricity would have been pretty confusing for him to grasp. It's just that we're used to it.

>> No.27910930

op here, exactly! That is my point. Lots of people seem to think an LG paladin is basically a pro-state-law vigilante or policeman. Lawful Good can mean lawful to a code of ethics, right?

>> No.27910945


What could arguably be described as the first public corporation was created to service and regulate a series of dams across the Seine. In the early Middle Ages.

There is nothing new under the sun. Communist enclaves existed, exist, and will exist.

>> No.27910962


> Communist enclaves existed, exist, and will exist.

Not if America has anything to say about it.

>> No.27910968

Of a sort yes. So yeah, the idea of "My philosophy is the newest, ergo it is the right/best one!" is retarded. It was sheer chance of fate or circumstances that one came before the other, nothing more.

>> No.27911034

I can see how it comes across like that, but it's not what I meant. Rather that these sort of changes don't happen over night and that it is difficult to see another era's veiw without being infulenced by your own time. Conceiving of things being done diffrently isn't the problem, it's beliving that they could ever be realistically workable that is the difficult part.

>> No.27912247

Such a character might have a difficult time serving a deity or what-have-you, without coming to grips with some sort of philosophy that puts it in a non-rulership relation to himself (anarchy). However, there shouldn't be a problem with law (anomie).

>> No.27912447

In reality it turns out making an anti-capitalist state is really hard when all the capitalists states want you dead.

>> No.27912530

>all the ancients were irrational violent shit-eaters.

they were and we still are. all humans are like that anon.

>> No.27912682

agreed with you above but many philosophies are build atop the foundations of earlier ones.
many nigh spontaneously occur, borne of one's unique insight. but many more are built from others learning about and then themselves considering it.
dissertions and subversions aren't sheer chance. nor are they necessarily better.
just being a semantics Nazi.

>> No.27912703

Its cool. Be semantics man. My main point was idiots saying "My philosophy is the wave of the future!" or even worse "Ancients are dumb and can't understand our totally advanced modern life!"

Despite modern life and institutions being hilariously similar to ancient ones. Only thing we have thats "new" is technology, and thats something any moron can learn the basics of in a month.

>> No.27912783

>go to /pol/ in hopes of political system discussion
Everyone is a shitter
>come to /tg/ and find great political system thread
Why do I even bother with other boards?

I love you all.

>> No.27913086


Yeah, but if you want to talk rationally about game systems, you're out of luck on /tg/.

>> No.27913131


Oh, surely we can do that! It's the tabletop gaming board, for God's sake! Let's try it right now.

Who wants to compare and contrast Pathfinder with D&D Next?

>> No.27913155

> Who wants to compare and contrast Pathfinder with D&D Next?
No one. Go to bed.

>> No.27913179

>> No.27913201



>> No.27913269

Here's the thing most people miss about Marx: his ideals were meant to be applied to a post-industrial society. Communism is supposed to be the next step after capitalism, but makes absolutely no sense when stacked directly on top of feudalism.

Of course that chink Mao was gonna fuck it up, he was still thinking like a serf manning the guillotines. Tsarist Russia really wasn't fully industrialized either.

Marx's theory supposes a particular relationship between labor and capital that only existed in part of the world. That the entirely opposite half of civilization should be the ones to champion his ideas is one of the great ironies of history.

>> No.27913289

It's more how capitalism is inherently lawful. Sure, you can break and exploit laws, but it doesn't work without them. At all. Just take a look at any of present day lawless shitholes: do you see flourishing capitalism in any one of them? Foreign corporations armed with mercs don't count.

>> No.27913361

Anarcho-capitalists are amoral, abusive, self serving assholes, so no, I doubt it.

>> No.27913374


>> No.27913376

>Tsarist Russia really wasn't fully industrialized either.
95% of population were drunken surfs. True story.

>> No.27913443

>and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling capitalists!

>> No.27913602


Nevermind that shit, let's talk about how FATE is awesome. Awesomely stupid that is!

>> No.27913622


100 year later, much has changed. They are no longer serfs.

>> No.27915116

unless he kills you for witchcraft first

>> No.27915294

>Instead of Detect Evil he has Detect Communism.
Nah, he has detect evil... and communism pings on it.

>> No.27915329


Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron, so no.

>> No.27915344


Yeah, make detect (alignment) subjective to the wielder and don't actually spell that out to the players. Then watch hilarity ensue.

>> No.27915347

>the gentleman from Sword of Truth books
Sweet jesus. Ranger 2 / Paladin of Freedom 7 (fallen) / Blackguard 5?

>> No.27915357


>> No.27915374

It is simply a well established political term that means "Free Market Capitalism".

PS: IRL we have taxes and laws that restrict trade, therefore we do not have Free Market Capitalism, we have State Regulated Capitalism. Remove taxes and the legal monopoly imposed by the State and you have Free Market Capitalism. You've also removed the government: hence the anarcho.

Not that I am an anarcho-capitalist: much as I support the notion of liberty, the notion of capitalism does not strike me as being inherently something that I'd support.

>> No.27915380

I don't even fucking own that picture. This is what I meant to post.

>> No.27915399

Well hello /pol/

>> No.27915405

>It is simply a well established political term that means "Free Market Capitalism".

It's also terribly inaccurate.

>> No.27915429

Just ban alignment and call it "detect heresy". You detect individuals who have sinned against your god.

>> No.27915430

Not even /pol/ tolerates AnCaps.

>> No.27915453

/pol/ is really stupid.

>> No.27915507

Not really.

Free market means just that. A free market.

If you put regulations on that market, then it's not free.

We have regulations on our market, ergo it is not free.

The idea that contracts need to be enforced is a valid one. The idea that they need to be enforced by a government is not. (In the UK) Until Peel's police reform in 1829, the idea that the law of the land should be enforced by the government was ludicrous - before that the law was enforced by private companies. (In the US you had agencies like the Pinkertons.)

A Chaotic Good Bard of Cayden Cailean believes in personal liberty. Like the anarcho-capitalist. That doesn't mean that he believes people have the right to take his beer without asking, or that they have the right to hold slaves. Just because the anarcho-capitalist doesn't recognise the right of hoary gentlemen wearing wigs to tell him that he can't sell a certain kind of plant, that doesn't mean he doesn't think that voluntary contracts shouldn't be enforced.

>> No.27915523

Possibly one too many negatives in that last sentence. Ah well, the meaning is clear.

(Oh and once more, not an anarcho-capitalist. My political ideals are based on Iain Bank's Culture.)

>> No.27915550

Yes. You can have a LG Anarcho-Capitalist Paladin. It's called being a Paladin of Abadar.

>> No.27915554

>Not that I am an anarcho-capitalist: much as I support the notion of liberty, the notion of capitalism does not strike me as being inherently something that I'd support.
sounds like you are ignorant and stupid.
For example, the classical example given by anti-capitalists is a megacorp monopoly bribing politicians to undermine their competition who provides a better product, and then milk the helpless consumer. Except this is a clear example of people engaging in ANTI-capitalist behavior. Yes, a corporation can be anti-capitalist.

Anarcho capitalism is idealized non violent society, just like communism. And just like communism it is an impossible system. They require complete and absolute dedication from 100% of the population. Communism falls apart because people would prefer to be lazy, or refuse to work to support the lazy, so they must be coerced. Anarcho capitalism falls apart because people commit violent crimes, steal, and have a desire to conquer.

>> No.27915596

It's not that I don't see practical benefit to capitalism. I just don't hold it up as an ethical ideal.

There are practical benefits to the state regulated market we have now. Doesn't mean I think that's ideal either.

There are (assertedly) practical benefits of having a truly free market, but as you say, it's an impossible system, so I don't see why I should hold that up as an ideal (whereas the Culture's post scarcity economy is also an impossible system - but if I had a Wish, I'd Wish for that rather than Anarcho-Capitalism).

But please, if you have a reason why I should support capitalism as being INHERENTLY desirable (rather than as a practical means of production), feel free to share it.

>> No.27915651

Could it be that OP used the paladin as a scapegoat to start a thread about his non-/tg/ related opinions?

>> No.27915665

OP, have you read Flipside? It has something like AnCap paladins-- "enforcers" in a country whose only law is "no violence".

>> No.27915667

Because capitalism =! anachro-capitalism.

Capitalism is free exchange of goods and services, it is NOT corporations and 0-regulation. simply put, you are FREE to buy whatever the fuck you want without anyone ever forcing you to:
1. Work against your will (slavery)
2. Buy a product you don't want
3. Give away money to a cause you don't support.

Capitalism and Anachro-capitalism are very different. Anachro-capitalism is an impossibility like communism because they require the dissolution of government. But regular capitalism is NOT an impossibility and can be done via government.

Regulations are absolutely necessary to have capitalism because the powerful are always tempted to abuse to their power in an anti-capitalist behavior to maintain their power.

Communist lie: Pure capitalism allows slavery because banning slavery is a government regulation and you should be free to own slaves
Reality: Capitalism requires a strong government that bans slavery, because using violence to force someone to work for you for free goes against the most basic of capitalist tenants.

Communist lie: Pure capitalism means business will abuse monopoly powers to destroy their competitors instead of providing better quality goods or services due to 0 government regulation
Reality: without government regulation you cannot have capitalism as the current reigning corporation will either engage in anti-capitalist behavior to maintain their power, or eventually fall and be replaced by someone who would.

>> No.27915686

yea, that comic went full bullshit with the rant against anachro-capitalism and people who live by the "0 violence rule".
The main heroine dad ODs on alcohol, she goes to the healer who turns out to be a fantasy jew (woman doctor with hooked nose, her dad wears a yamaka, has a hooked nose, slouches, is short, bald... serious jew stereotype).
Her father has 15 minutes to live... they demand she pay the full sum in cash, immediately, and absolutely REFUSE to give out a loan (lol, jews not loaning money) despite the fact she is clearly good for it. They also tell her what a worthless sack of shit her dad is so he is better off dead. So she forces them to heal him at swordpoint, then surrenders to enforces who are like "lol bloodsports". Now, she is closely tied to a high ranking enforcer... but the enforcers REFUSE to accept the fine payment and at most agree to let BOTH of them earn the fine via bloodsports (even though they already have the money to pay). because "lol zero aggression principle".

>> No.27915713

A corporation engaging in crime is still doing crime and will be punished like this. The only way for a corporation to hold it's earned monopoly is to keep providing the best products and services. Holding other corporations done would also mean to engage in crime.

But anarcho-capitalism is an ideal so all discussions are about assumptions in one or another way.

>> No.27915716

Anar-caps operate on voluntary service, non-aggression, and personal freedom/liability. That's NG at worst. Sure there's assholes, but then there's people who just want to live a simple life, making and selling wares, helping their neighbor, and enjoying life.

>> No.27915718

I actually don't think the author was trying to push an anti-AnCap agenda. I think he was setting up a sort of worst-case scenario that would push Bernadette to hate Marvallo, and I suspect that by the time the colosseum arc is over Marvallo will end up in a much more favorable light.

>> No.27915720


In anarcho-capitalism, competing private agencies would be upholding those contracts. The one that was best and most honorable to its customers would get the most foot traffic. Essentially, a competitive, privately-run justice system.

I'm not an AnCap, myself, but it is a thing and does make logical sense, at least.

>> No.27915723

Anarcho-Capitalism is Chaotic Evil, so no.

>> No.27915726

Sounds like you lost a woman to a glorious Anarcap, keep mirin, communist pigdog.

>> No.27915754

>>27915667 cont
next up, theft

commie lie: capitalism requires dissolving the police
reality: capitalism requires a police in order to stop theft, murder, rape, etc. All of which are anti capitalist behavior (you take someone's property, life, or body without their permission)

Now, you might say, the government itself must force you to pay and that is anti-capitalist.
This is absolutely true, because we are dealing with reality and not fantasy. in fantasy, aka anachro-capitalism, the government is optional, so is police, the military, etc. And as such they will be usurped by corruption and authoratarian government.

With realistic capitalism you have the minimal anti-capitalist institution (the government).

Now, the problem is, that government regulation can be either pro-capitalism (ban theft, protect against usurpation of power, ban monopoly abuses (but not fair monopolies who just happen to provide the best quality goods)). Or it can be anti-capitalism (cronyism destroying the competitors of big business who donate to politicians, wealth redistribution, etc).

However, while it is hard to defend against anti capitalist behavior done by a government. It is absolutely impossible to defend when there is no government at all as suggested by anachro-capitalists

>> No.27915761

>A corporation engaging in crime is still doing crime and will be punished like this. The only way for a corporation to hold it's earned monopoly is to keep providing the best products and services. Holding other corporations done would also mean to engage in crime.
I don't understand what your point is
Are you saying this is capitalism? anarch-capitalism? socialism?

>> No.27915777

>I actually don't think the author was trying to push an anti-AnCap agenda
Then you are blind. Also, read his comments not just the comic itself.

Also, his jew thing was really disgusting

>> No.27915792

Heh, cute.

>> No.27915796

You are too concerned with this -isms.

>> No.27915801

Can you point me to some of these comments? I've only read the comic.

>> No.27915803

I think Chaotic Evil is the best way to describe Somalia, which is an an-cap paradise.

>> No.27915822

>commie lie: capitalism requires dissolving the police

I have never seen a leftist arguing that is true. I have seen the odd nutcase who wants the police to be replace by private military companies.

>> No.27915830


A lot of ancaps think it's not for everyone.

>> No.27915834

I don't think living under the rule of pirates and Islamic warlords is anybodies paradise.

>> No.27915837

I am just trying to figure out what your argument is.
If your sole argument is that being a corporation shouldn't confer immunity from the law... then yes, I agree. but what does that have to do with the argument?
Also, any argument that says "obey the law" without explaining what the law ought to be falls flat.
200 Lashes for Rape Victim in saudi arabia.

>> No.27915841


I could see that solution working to an extent for companies that do repeat business with each other it mutually agreed contracts. But what if one party never agreed to anything? For example, if you build a factory right next to my house that pollutes my land? Or if a big company uses its market power to run me out of business and establish a monopoly? Or if you just straight up steal from me? Hiring an agency after the offense has been committed strikes me as identical to just buying a mercenary, which could easily be abused.

>> No.27915866

> Hiring an agency after the offense has been committed strikes me as identical to just buying a mercenary, which could easily be abused.
As opposed to lawsuits, which have never been abused.

>> No.27915876

1. Work against your will (slavery)

Been to jail?

2. Buy a product you don't want

Have car insurance? Paid sales tax? Paying for Obamacare/NHS?

3. Give away money to a cause you don't support.

Paid tax?

>> No.27915878

It has something to do with >>27915667 >as the current reigning corporation will either engage in anti-capitalist behavior to maintain their power

Like the first thing a corporation, as soon as it has some power, is to be the typical cyper-punk evil plutocratic empire. Like everyone who touches a gun goes immediatly on a killing spree. And it all this cases no one would try to stop them like all laws are abolished.

>> No.27915883

Sales tax is not a 'product'.

>> No.27915892


Not nearly to the same extent as literally hiring thugs to murder your competitors. The fact that the current system is flawed doesn't imply that "no system" I'd better.

>> No.27915896

>Hiring an agency after the offense has been committed strikes me as identical to just buying a mercenary, which could easily be abused.
Yep, which is why An-cap is a fantasy.

However, it is worth noting the difference between violence, and initiation of violence. It is the zero AGRESSION principle not zero VIOLENCE principle.

Lets say your neighbor raped you, he is clearly in the wrong. You contact the police company you contract, they send mercenaries to take him down and execute him.
His right to life and body were taken away from him via violence... but this does not violate AnCap because even though violence occured against the rapist, the rapist is the one who actually INITIATED violence. You merely retaliated with mercenaries.

Now, an abusive merc company is a target for legitimate merc police. The merc police has 10,000 customers who are being threatened by the abusive merc company.
The problem is that in reality the abusive mercs would be more profitable and powerful and will curbstomp legitimate merc police.

>> No.27915902

in defense of the car insureance/sales tax thing: you don't technically need to buy/drive a car, or buy an item. (obamcare is bullshit because you technically DO need to live, obviously.)

>> No.27915911

>This is absolutely true
Only it's not, and I've posted historical RL examples to the contrary in this very thread.

>> No.27915916

Yes, all of those things are anti-capitalist, but they are the lesser anti-capitalist thing that are absolutely necessary for a real capitalist society to function.
Because a capitalist society has to protect itself from anti capitalists via non capitalist means.

Just as a non violent society must protect itself from the violent by inflicting violence back on them.

It isn't as big a dichotomy as you propose.

>> No.27915917

Anarchy is freedom from tyranny, Capitalism is inherently tyrannical. It isn't really hard to see the contradiction.

>> No.27915919

Why on earth would you hire somebody to murder them? You'd want their property.

>> No.27915933

I realise you're trolling, but Somalia is not a ideological anarchy, nor is it an anarchy. It's a morass of competing states propped up by strength of arms.

>> No.27915940

You also do not need insurance to drive on your own or someone else's property with their permission.

>> No.27915942

Strikes me as being identical to calling the state sponsored mercenaries you call a police force.

>> No.27915948

1. I made both posts you quoted
2. You quote a line that started with "either" and failed to quote the part after the "or".
>or eventually fall and be replaced by someone who would.
Any legitimate and just corporation that competes solely on the quality of its goods, will lose its market dominance if competing against a criminal upstart that is engaging in anticapitalist behavior with impunity

>> No.27915949

The right to buy from the people you choose to buy from and the right to start and run a business to earn money are tyrannical now?

>> No.27915951


"Free Market" is a laughable concept. Market without regulation is a jungle. And guess what people have done, when confronted with the jungle? Created regulations, hierarchic structures... and state.

>> No.27915956

You cannot hire the police to murder people who knock over your fence.

>> No.27915964

No, but "government" is. And tax is the price tag on it.

In the UK it's illegal to drive without insurance. I didn't realise you didn't need it in the states.

If I pay for private medical care, why do I need to pay (through tax) for Obamacare/NHS - as it is a product I'll never use. It's like saying "everyone must buy a playstation, even if you'd rather play xbox". That's not capitalism.

>> No.27915967

And because of this I talked about crimes.

>> No.27915973

But you can effectively hire them to enforce anti-competitive laws, via lobbying.

>> No.27915981


Because that way you can get all of their property and stop them from retaliating? This is the reason why laws and police exist to begin with. If there is no one to stop you, taking other people's wealth is much easier than building more wealth yourself. So whoever can afford the strongest "private enforcement agency" can and will use that power against others. And if you know that your property and life are not safe and are even more of a target if you have things people want, why even bother to invest or build wealth?

>> No.27915982

and now i finally understand what your point was. I asked you to clarify because it seemed like a random unclear statement and I had no idea where you were going with it.

>You cannot hire the police to murder people who knock over your fence.
Maybe not in the united states. but you can in mexico or china.

>> No.27915984

He means that like it is in the UK you do not need insurance to drive around on your own land just on roads.

>> No.27915993


Sounds pretty free to me. Or unregulated as it were.

Apparently having "no state" also requires people to deliberately refuse to exert authority over anyone for it to count as an anarchy.

>> No.27916008

>Apparently having "no state" also requires people to deliberately refuse to exert authority over anyone for it to count as an anarchy.
Hence the fantasy, it requires 100% of the population to refuse to assert power over the rest of the population. Which is ridiculous, see power vacuum.

>> No.27916010

Tibet would argue with you.

I own a house. This house has a garden. The deed to my house says I can't drive a vehicle in the garden.

I realise that I could still drive on someone else's land without insurance, but how exactly are we defining "your own property"? Because it seems to me that the g'v'ment has its fingers all over what I can and cannot buy and for what purposes.

Muh freedoms.

As I said, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I don't necessarily believe we should have a free market. I was simply making the argument that anarcho-capitalism means having a free market. Much like how saying communism means having a planned economy. I wasn't making an ideological pitch for why that is desirable, I was defining the term for someone who didn't understand it.

>> No.27916030

That implies that the other enforcement agencies are too dumb to band together against the largest one. And fighting is very expensive, so it's likely that most enforcement agencies would have arbitration agreements in place anyway (kind of like extradition treaties).

>> No.27916048

How the hell does the deed to YOUR house forbid you from driving in your own garden? And this cannot be very common because most people have to drive on their own front or back garden to park their car.

>> No.27916063

then enforcement agencies start fortifying controlled territories. But now each has some of the citizens of other enforcement agencies in their territory. who default on the contract, uh oh... so they either force those people out or force them to buy enforcement. Either via direct violence or via blocking competitors from operating in their territory (you pay taxes or the police will refuse to help you when you are raped and robbed).
Now the enforcement agencies are countries for all intent and purposes.

>> No.27916091

And why would I hire mercenaries to murder for me?

Why would I not hire them to ensure the people who knocked over my fence pay for the damages?

And does this person not have loved ones who'd seek redress? Would my neighbours want to have me hiring killers for every dispute?

And what stops me going on the hidden wiki and hiring a killer now?

When you assert authority over people you become a state. That's the anarcho-capatalist definition.

A gang of armed thugs is a state. Whether they wear blue uniforms or pirate bandannas.

It's not unregulated. The Somali government sends out armed forces to impose order. Foreign nations send out armed forces to impose order. Pirate gangs send out armed forces to impose order. This is regulation.

Anarcho-capitalism is about VOLUNTARY cooperation. Which is why it doesn't work. It CANNOT exist BY DEFINITION while other people want to rule you. Which is why, I have repeatedly said, I don't support it.

I'm simply explaining what it is to people like you because you clearly don't understand it.

Seriously. It's like I'm explaining how a five-foot step works in D&D and you're repeatedly saying that a human being cannot comfortably stretch their legs to five feet in a single step while stubbornly refusing to open the D&D rule book. And I'm an Exalted fan, who is getting mighty tired of talking about D&D (especially as no-one's responded to my Paladin of Abadar assertation).

>> No.27916116

Don't have a driveway or a dropped curb.

I also can't shoot an air-rifle that I legally own on the property that I legally own.

We don't have as many freedoms in the UK as you might think. Which is why I'm not on liberty (even if I'm lukewarm on capitalism).

>> No.27916128

They don't have "controlled territories" in the first place. Trying to build such territories would be a direct threat to their competitors in the area, who would certainly fight back if push came to shove.

What you've described might possibly happen if there were only two competing firms in an area, but as long as there are more than that (as there are in most markets), there's no reason why a small imbalance of power would snowball like that.

>> No.27916130

>police = armed thugs

When are you people going to stop this idiotic and childish argument.

>> No.27916138

When it stops being true?

>> No.27916140


Because no countries have ever fought wars with each other, because it's too expensive. And drug gangs never fight each other, it would hurt their bottom line.

Even if these groups don't constantly fight each other, at best you've got a situation where a group of profit-oriented mercenary groups reach some sort of balance of power. Even if this warlord cabal which is apparently the basis of an ideal society doesn't sell favors on the form of always "enforcing" the side of whoever has more money (which they would), this is essentially just a worse version of having a police force, because instead of taxes you still have to pay protection money which is likely higher because they need to maintain enough strength to potentially fight each other. A monopoly on violence (ie a government) makes sense because it minimizes the violence needed to sustain itself and thus, the cost.

>> No.27916146

I live in the UK, everyone parks on their own gardens in every place I have been to. If they don't its because their garden is physically too small, I have never heard of a deed like yours.

>> No.27916158

Tabloids only report on the 1/10000 pigs that power trip and refuse to take responsibility. Get your news from official statistics and not Reddit, Fox, Daily Mail, or whatever.

>> No.27916165

Except you would have to be the stupidest, edgiest most immature motherfucker on the planet to actually buy into the notion that police officers are thugs by default. It is objectively false by any sensible definition of the word thug. Third world shitholes with corrupt police may be different.

>> No.27916186


>When people start voluntarily and without force or threat of force being nice to each other, we will have reached our utopia. Any transgression against utopia is becoming a state, that's why state is bad. If people don't do bad things, everything will be swell!

Ha! Good luck.

>> No.27916204

What you've described is exactly the situation we live in now, if you look at the world as a whole. States do favor their own citizens in disputes. They do need to maintain armies big enough to fight each other. They do in fact fight each other sometimes.

The only difference is that enforcement agencies aren't territorial monopolies. Which is a huge difference, since we know from economics that monopolies provide only poor goods and services at high prices.

>> No.27916229

I never said that the use of physical force was inherently wrong.

But I think it's important to recognise some simple facts:

A mercenary is paid by an employer to enforce a contract using force (or the threat of force).
A police officer is paid by the government to enforce the law using force (or the threat of force).

I don't see a meaningful distinction.

Nor do I see why it's legal for a cop to taser someone who breaks into my house, but it is illegal for me to taser that same criminal.

>> No.27916234


We get what is. It's just an idiotic and nonsensical idea. It'd be like if I told you about a proposal for a new healthcare system that assumes no one will ever get sick. It's so silly people can't help but point out the obvious.

>> No.27916251

If you don't have a dropped curb, you don't have right of access. Meaning you can park in your garden, but if I park blocking your access to the road there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

You sound like you live in suburbia. Were I to park in my garden, it would obstruct my neighbours right of way. My deed very clearly lays out that I have right of access by foot and not by motor vehicle.

>> No.27916256


>Why it's legal

Because it's the Law. That's what the word means.

IF you meant whether it's right or wrong, that's entirely something different.

>> No.27916280


The ironic thing is that basically Marx's entire list of demands are basically accepted in every single civilized nation worldwide. The Communist Manifesto is actually about how to implement Socialism... and since all of the tenets of Socialism, as Marx defined them, are now accepted everywhere, World Socialism is totally a thing. Of course, it helps that his demands were only particularly radical by 19th century standards; these days, there aren't really any people who think that nobility have hereditary rights to stuff anymore.

See here for more analysis than will fit in a 4chan post, if interested: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=283120#283120

>> No.27916283

>Get your news from official statistics
Gee, which statistics would those be? Those produced by the police? I'm sure they will be quite unbiased.

> Tabloids only report on the 1/10000 pigs that power trip and refuse to take responsibility
Setting aside that the number is far higher than that, there's also the fact that the rest of them are complicit when they look the other way and refuse to punish the "bad apples". The thin blue line is a real thing.

Besides, we already know that power corrupts. Why would we be surprised to see rampant corruption in an organization that is essentially the embodiment of power?

>> No.27916286

If I'm in my house, eating a plant, and someone breaks into my house by knocking down the door, lays hands upon me and forcibly removes me from my house to force me into a cage in a location that I do not want to be in, and restricts my access to the people I care about, I would define that person as a "thug".

>> No.27916313

Did you read my post? The post that says I don't believe in the ideology? The post that says the ideology is an impossible ideology? The post that says I was merely defining the ideology for you because you didn't understand it and was arguing against a strawman that didn't exist?

The post urging you to actually discuss the point raised by the OP?


Didn't think so.

By Nethys you people are dense.

>> No.27916322

The cop has permission, you don't. Ideally, the cop has training in how to use a taser, which though of fairly low lethality, is still a weapon that can inflict serious pain. If he follows the 'rules' then he wont be held responsible. However, if you use a weapon untrained, and you do disproportionate harm to someone, or kill them, then you're up shit creek.

If you have a problem with being unable to defend yourself in your home, you have the right to contact those in charge of your town, state, or country and ask them to change the law to allow yourself to do so.

>> No.27916345

You realise this thread is about the servant of a God and the MAGICAL POWERS this person gets from following the god's ideology right?

In which case "why are we even talking about Paladins! They don't exist! You should play a level 1 neckbeard and put your skill ranks in /tg/!"

>> No.27916364

Perhaps if you looked at my post in the context that it was placed. It was addressing the fact that police officers are thugs. The status of "thug" is a moral one to do with the application of violence to achieve an end. Not a legal one.

>> No.27916365

Hope you find enough people who love to dig shit or pick up tracks, or work at all when others are meeting their needs free of charge.

>> No.27916388

>Besides, we already know that power corrupts
Power has never, ever, in the history of humanity, corrupted a single individual.

The corrupt PRETEND to be honest until they have enough power to not need to pretend anymore.
If you point at a politician and say "this person was pure and good and then power corrupted him" then you are a naive fool who missed all the red flags and fell for his tricks when he was pretending to be good. Also, I have a bridge to sell you

>> No.27916403

Permission from whom? From the government. The people contracting him as a mercenary.

And why do you assume that I don't have training in how to use a taser?

And why should I need the approval of some person in a wig who lives hundreds of miles away from me in order to defend myself in my own home?

By the by, I have contacted my local and national government to lobby for a change in law. It hasn't happened yet. My redress?

>> No.27916438

marx was a fucking moron, he coined the term cronyism and described how cronyism is an epidemic. He then suggested that if you replace the free market with a totalitarian system ruled by incorruptible angels who have nothing but the good of the people in mind you would eliminate cronyism. He then posited that the best way of doing so to have an extremely strong government with limited civil liberties.

The guy was a fucking retard and his most fundamental view was the cronyism is caused by capitalism and free market, and that cronyism should be abolished. And yet we have never seen that actually done.

>> No.27916462

>One of the great errors in modern thought is thinking that they are the only true civilized people ever, and that all the ancients were irrational violent shit-eaters.

THIS FUCKING THIS. There seems to be a very prevalent thought that people seem to have that they are the center of the universe. That only moderns are educated and wise, and that anybody who doesn't share your political views is some sort of frothing-mouthed radical who has dared to stray from your belief system at the center of some ideological map.

>> No.27916481

Corruption is a function of what you do, not what you "are" (if that even means anything in the first place). To say that corruption merely "reveals" someone's true nature is just mincing words. What matters is that people with power tend to act in a more corrupt way than those without.

>> No.27916489

Would you rather live under the "laws" of Rovagug and be "free" or the laws of Asmodeus and be safe?

>> No.27916491

>One of the great errors in modern thought is thinking that they are the only true civilized people ever, and that all the ancients were irrational violent shit-eaters.
Absolutely true, our ancestors weren't the monsters people think them to be.

>and that anybody who doesn't share your political views is some sort of frothing-mouthed radical who has dared to stray from your belief system at the center of some ideological map.
>A Saudi court on Tuesday more than doubled the number of lashes that a female rape victim was sentenced to last year after her lawyer appealed the original sentence.

>> No.27916520

corrupt means you have been changed from good to bad
It does not mean you have always been bad and now for the first time you finally have been given the authority and power to exercise it

>> No.27916528


>> No.27916563

Does it though?

If it's a wide code of ethics (knightly chivalry, bushido etc), then I'd agree.

But a personal code of ethics sounds Neutral Good to me. It sounds like you hold to a belief about doing the right thing, and you aren't afraid to break the law to do it. Which isn't Lawful, it's Chaotic.

>> No.27916569

But "good" and "bad" can only be defined by what people do. If a person goes from doing good to doing bad, then he changes from a good person to a bad one by definition. There is no such thing as a "true nature", at least as far as the world is concerned.

>> No.27916600

My Lawful Evil Cleric can do good deeds while spreading the word of Asmodeus. That doesn't make me good, it makes me conniving.

>> No.27916611

The definition of good and bad are subjective, this has nothing to do with any of my arguments.

1. I argued you are misusing the term corruption. That corruption might be a subjective thing doesn't matter
2. Subjective means that different people will have a different view of what it is. But each one will have a consistent view. Further, the argument I made is that the personality of the person supposedly being corrupted has been consistent the whole time and he has just deceived you earlier when he ran for political office. Or in very rare cases he has deceived himself.

>> No.27916621

I was not aware eating cabbage was illegal. And yes if you have broken the law then the police can arrest you, that is their job. You can disagree with what is illegal but to disagree with their right to enforce the law is insane.

>> No.27916636

The thing blue line refers to the police themselves and their role of catching criminals, of course its real.

>> No.27916645

That's what you get for waging a two-front war, one against foreign powers, and the other against your own people.

Seriously though, I need to run a campaign in a setting where a coalition of evil empires conquered half the world before collapsing in on themselves as part of the backstory. Then the players are going to run into an orc or drow who will come up with a series of contrived excuses as to why their empire shat itself and died.

>> No.27916650


Yes, but then he would not be an Anarcho-Capitalist.

>> No.27916660

The fact that you need permission from the government to defend yourself is the disturbing thing about this whole situation. Any government that does not grant its citizens that permission needs to be gotten rid of immediately because its clearly run by psychopathic tyrants.

>> No.27916672

That is not how thug is usually defined, why have you made up your own definition just so you can call the police a word with negative connotations?

>> No.27916679

Why? Why is it insane to say that people shouldn't have the right to break into your house and attack you?

(Eating "Catha edulis" (edible khat) is illegal.)

>> No.27916682

Alright, now that we've settled that An-Cap is about as realistic as theoretic communism, we can move on to another topic:

What makes you think ownership rights are natural rights?

I mean aside from the stone tablet from mount Sinai that explicitly forbids stealing.

Why should any single man be entitled to more of Earth's natural resources than any other?

>> No.27916683


Dude, this argument is dumb.
The two sides are talking about "legal" and "right" as though they were the same thing and they're obviously not by definition synonymous.

It is possible to make unjust laws, you are correct. I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you there.

>> No.27916704

> while spreading the word of Asmodeus
But that's also an action. If he *only* does good, then from the world's perspective he *is* good. It doesn't matter what his intentions were.

Your objection to the idea that "power corrupts" hinges on your belief in some kind of "true nature" that can differ from a person's actions. I'm saying that this "true nature" either doesn't exist, or might as well not for the world's purposes. In that case, your objection is meaningless.

>> No.27916706

>Thug, a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, often for hire
>eats others violently for hire


You're right, I did not mean a thuggee. But then, I don't think most people who say "thug" mean "thuggee".

>> No.27916712


Tell me a natural right that is not ownership over something.

>> No.27916723

Because how are the police supposed to capture criminals for trial if they are not allowed to actually touch them?

>> No.27916726

From Wikipedia:
>Most use the term to refer to the unwavering commitment the police have for each other, to the point of willingness to blur the truth in favor of their "blue" brethren. Meaning: The police do not cross "the thin blue line" when it comes to defending each others' actions.

>> No.27916728

>treats not eats
Man that's some freaky-ass police...

>> No.27916730

Because it's the base of civilization?

>> No.27916737

> Marx
> advocating totalitarianism

You are mistaken. Marx was, unquestionably, wrong, but he wasn't wrong in the sense of advocating an unworkable totalitarian system (what actually happened). No, he advocated something not entirely unlike a modern social democracy, and then thought that, once such a state had power over the economy in the various ways we expect of a modern-day state, that it would somehow magically vanish, leaving a pure and perfect communism, without much in the way of a state at all. He had plenty of advice for setting up the state in the first place, but none at all for the magical transformation that would make it all better afterwards. Not surprising that Lenin and successors proceeded to fuck it up by going further and creating a totalitarian hell... but also, totally untrue that that was Marx's plan from the beginning.

>> No.27916739


There are none.

Then again, that doesn't really mean much, seeing as the entire concept of natural rights is rather shaky. Well, not if you're religious, but for an euphoric...

>> No.27916747

Why should police be allowed to touch criminals but common citizens not be allowed?

Why should police have a monopoly on law enforcement?

Why should they be able to touch me for eating a plant? Or copying movies? Or refusing to pay for services that I do not need or want?

>> No.27916758

You are heavily misrepresenting history. States have always enforced their laws, that is sort of their thing.

>> No.27916766


Because representatives of the majority have decreed that so should it be. Presumably for the common good and with mandate of the majority.

>inb4 9 rapist and 1 children on an isle
typical libertarian fantasy, that.

>> No.27916774

>Your objection to the idea that "power corrupts" hinges on your belief in some kind of "true nature" that can differ from a person's actions. I'm saying that this "true nature" either doesn't exist, or might as well not for the world's purposes. In that case, your objection is meaningless.
You are saying that it is impossible for a person to act against his nature by pretending to be something he isn't to avoid persecution?

Is it impossible for a homosexual in yemen to pretend to be straight to avoid being executed?
Is it impossible for a pedophile in the UK to pretend to not be one to avoid being incarcerated?
Is it impossible for a thief to deny being one to avoid being incarcerated/having their arm cut off?

People hide what they do all the time. Fuck, I know I sure as hell don't reveal all my dirtiest secrets.

Also, you seem to have decided that you get to redefine what the word corrupt means because you feel it is too black and white, well you don't. I might agree with you about morality being relative but that doesn't mean you get to redefine words.

>> No.27916778

Common citizens have the rights to self defence and to restrain criminals you know. And are you trying to imply its a bad thing there are actual procedures to be followed and that the accused have rights instead of vigilante mobs grabbing people and proclaiming judgement upon them?

And again what is illegal or not is completely irrelevant when discussing whether the police should be able to enforce the law. You are blaming the police for the actions of politicians you disagree with.

>> No.27916797

True. But they did so via the market.

Anarcho-capitalism (sigh, really, I'm talking about this again) states that because states used the market to enforce the law, that the market is capable of enforcing the law.

My specific point in that thread is that a government owned police force is not required to enforce "the law". Which is a corner stone of anarcho-capitalism.

A few posts down you'll notice the argument devolved into saying that government monopoly police are Police and this is a Good Thing while free-market police are Mercenaries and this is a Bad Thing with no explanation as to why this might be.

>> No.27916799

Bullshit, I read his works

>Not surprising that Lenin and successors proceeded to fuck it up by going further and creating a totalitarian hell... but also, totally untrue that that was Marx's plan from the beginning.
I explicitly said it wasn't, his plan was for the totalitarian government to be run by angels who are incorruptible and only care for the betterment of mankind.

>> No.27916801

Implying anarchists all around aren't the true good guys.

>> No.27916815

>Common citizens have the rights to self defence and to restrain criminals you know.
not in england

>> No.27916827

That's an awkward presumption to make.

Why should the representatives do what's best for the majority when they could do what is best for themselves?

Hitler was elected. The jews were a minority.

Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

And if we had a referendum on it tomorrow, are you saying you wouldn't vote to legalise internet piracy and weed?

>> No.27916828

I'm saying that from the world's perspective, there is no difference between "he was always bad, but convincingly pretended to be good for a time" and "he changed from good to bad". That's all. I have no interest in debating semantics with you any longer.

>> No.27916833


The concept of natural rights is a philosophical idea that there are limits to government power. Your right to something is either "Natural" or it was granted to you by a government (or I suppose an informal social consensus).

If the social construct can grant you something, it can also take it away. If you don't believe in natural rights, government literally cannot do wrong.

>> No.27916837


While on the topic, let's consider this:

Is Privacy conducive to liberty?

What is privacy but power to deceive, obscure the truth and influence decision-making of other individuals?

What right do you have to deny information to another?

Indeed you are exerting power and force over other individuals when you enjoy your privacy, because you are limiting availability of information they need to make the best, most efficient and sensible decision.

>> No.27916851

You are an ignorant fool or a troll, you assholes need to stop pretending we get jailed forever for hurting a burglars pinkie finger.

>> No.27916868

>You don't like the government imposing insane over-bearing regulations and psychotic police state laws, then you must be opposed to all regulations and hate the police, military, public infrastructure et. al.

Really man, the Left in America constantly suggests that any opposition to the encroachment of government means you don't want any government at all. They even call the Tea Partiers terrorists and anarchists all the time.

>> No.27916879

>its a violation of your rights to not be able to spy on people
>its not a violation of your rights to be spied on

Are you trolling?

>> No.27916889

I'm blaming the people who use violence to enforce unjust edicts.

Self defence. But not with batons, pepper spray or tasers. Not with guns. Not a lot of defence there.

Is it a bad thing that we have procedures and rights for the accused? No.
Is it a bad thing that only the government gets to decide what those rights are? Yes.

You can be imprisoned, without charge, for 90 days. Because the government says so. Why? Because you might be an enemy of the government.

That's the state of play in the UK.

Why should the government get to lay down laws asserting its own supremacy over the common man?

I didn't volunteer to be a British citizen, I was enslaved to laws, laid down before my birth.

Do I have a redress? Yes, I can leave Britain and become a slave to the laws of some other state. I cannot set the laws by which I wish to live and invite other people to live by those laws.

And why not?

Because the government says so.

Let us not forget that the government became the government through bloody warfare and physical force. Yet if I were to use those methods to set up my own state, I'd be a monster.

>> No.27916893


>Hitler was elected
Geez. I guess there really were 9 rapists on the island that time. Or maybe people are not quite as reasonable as some think.

>Tyranny by majority is still tyranny
Tough break. It's unavoidable except if majority wilfully and voluntarily refuses to go tyrannical over you.

>legalization of internet piracy and weed
Actually I'm no fan of either of those myself and enjoy status que, thank you very much. Although if you can come up with better means of financing development of "intellectual property" without legal monopolies of some sort, go ahead and share your insights.

>> No.27916897

its like you don't even read the news. People in england get arrested for defending themselves all the time, and convicted, and thrown in jail.

it depends
Privacy is essential to stopping government abuse of citizens. People being punished for being gay, people being punished for having interracial relationship, people being punished for using a dildo. All are real crimes in various places and privacy protects against such violate.

However, privacy of government official is antithesis of liberty.

On the other side, you have people being caught with a corpse in the basement and the case being thrown out because the police didn't have a search warrant.

The bottom line is that it all depends and that the devil is in the details.

>> No.27916908

AnCaps only want freedom so they can oppress you, they think that with no vaguely defined "higher powers" such as "government", "state or "the man" they will stop being poor/retarded/unsuccesful. They want a return of might makes right without even being powerful themselves.
It's a power fantasy for teenagers with a thesaurus.

>> No.27916916


What makes you think so?

Why would you want privacy if not to escape consequences of your actions?

Do you have something to hide? Do you do something that would warrant shunning by the rest of society, something worse than everyone else does? Do you not think that people are rational beings that would put the entirety of your image in perspective and not judge you any more harshly than any other person?

>> No.27916921

We didn't need Obamacare to sell us a service. There were healthcare providers before Obama, and now that he is forcing 1/6 of the economy into his crony capitalist slavery scheme, doctors are leaving the industry in droves. Hopefully they will come back after Obamacare collapses because no one can sign up for it.

>> No.27916924

>if you can come up with better means of financing development of "intellectual property" without legal monopolies of some sort, go ahead and share your insights.
Why does IP need to be protected?
Humans learn by copying, the entire basis of our intelligence is copying.
IP cripple humanity

>> No.27916929

I don't make art for profit.

And tyranny by majority IS unavoidable. I believe I've said that every third post when I've said that anarcho-capitalism is untenable.

While unavoidable, it is neither moral nor desirable.

A Paladin who struggles against an ingrained and fundamental evil is pretty much a default Paladin.

>> No.27916937

>There were healthcare providers before Obama
Overpriced as hell and doing less than saner parts of the world
>and now that he is forcing 1/6 of the economy into his crony capitalist slavery scheme, Buzzwords
>doctors are leaving the industry in droves
Citation needed

>> No.27916945


If IP does not need to be protected, then why is china not an innovation powerhouse?

>> No.27916947

So who decides then? the family of the victim? the mob of angry idiots who think you deserve to be strung up for fucking your teenage girlfriend? What about the people who hate you and want to use this as an opportunity to get rid of you?

You are delusional if you think its possible to get rid of the government, people will immediately form one and rebuild if the previous one was destroyed.

>> No.27916957

Nope. Private healthcare cover in the US was actually of comparable cost (for a family of four) to what UK citizens were paying (via tax) for the NHS.

Sure healthcare cover has a deductible, but the NHS has prescription and dental charges.

>> No.27916964

All completely irrelevant, I just like my privacy. And I should not have to justify to anyone why I do. A better question is why you are a sociopath who wants to spy on people.

>> No.27916977

Why one? Why not dozens.

Dozens of different governments, all espousing different laws. Don't like one government, chose another one instead.

>> No.27916978


>> No.27916980

1. communism
2. 99% of the pop being subsistence farmers
3. china actually does enforce IP, fairly strictly too.

>> No.27916988

The UK also has higher wages. Meanwhile wages in the US are all kinds of fucked up.

>> No.27916991

My warhammer comes from China...

>> No.27916992

did you miss the part where every factory in the USA is being shut down to move manufacturing to china?

>> No.27917011

You completely changed the argument. The initial assumption was that privacy and liberty were incompatible.

>Do you have something to hide? Do you do something that would warrant shunning by the rest of society, something worse than everyone else does? Do you not think that people are rational beings that would put the entirety of your image in perspective and not judge you any more harshly than any other person?

Pretty much by definition, if this is true, then your liberty is being infringed. So we can see that privacy is very important for liberty.

>> No.27917020

A man is entitled to the sweat off his brow.

>> No.27917025


Why shouldn't I? You might be plotting to steal my property or even kill me! For all I know, you might be a religious fanatic bent on murdering countless innocents in the name of your deity...

Or I might be an employer and want to know who am I employing. Are you a genuine hard-working genius, or did you just fill your CV with bullshit?

Maybe I want to make a trade with you and I am not convinced that you are a Nigerian mine owner or a royal scion as you claim.

Maybe you're wanting to go out with my daughter and I'm worried that you're some junkie that will rape her and possibly share her with his buddies.

What right do you have to deny me any of this information?

>> No.27917035

>The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 enshrines the right of people to use “reasonable force” to protect themselves, others or property. Any act of self-defence, for example against a burglar, must be “reasonable in the circumstances” as perceived by the victim.

>Crown Prosecution Service guidance emphasises that homeowners are not expected to make “fine judgments” in the heat of the moment. Acting in a way that you believe is “honestly and instinctively believe is necessary” is the foundation of self-defence and extends to chasing an intruder.

>Use of “something to hand as a weapon” can also be justified depending on the extremity of the circumstances. Prosecutors decided last month that Leicestershire couple Andy and Tracey Ferrie had no case to answer after Mr Ferrie opened fire on two masked burglars with a shotgun he kept in their bedroom.


>> No.27917037

>A Saudi court on Tuesday more than doubled the number of lashes that a female rape victim was sentenced to last year after her lawyer appealed the original sentence.

I'm not sure why you quoted this. The saudis really are savages so they don't count. I'm referring to the belief that one's ideology is at the center of some intangible scale everyone in this day and age seems to think. Imagine if people tried placing other philosophies or religions on scales or maps, we'd call them mad for applying some arbitrary chart to a belief system, and that their belief system was the paragon of moderation at the center of it all. Yet we do it with political ideology and nobody bats an eye.

>> No.27917043


Yeah, has it been designed there as well, or is it just being manufactured there because less annoying unions and lower pays?

>> No.27917046

Because of manufacturing costs, more than IP.
You know what is legally and economically viable thing to do so now? Send unprocessed chicken in a container to China and bring back assorted chicken foodstuffs back.

>> No.27917064

>Why would you want privacy if not to escape consequences of your actions?
>Do you have something to hide?
The only reason for privacy is if you have something to hide. however, having something to hide is not necessarily EVIL.

In Iran women are stoned to death for adultery as do gay men.
In Texas selling a dildo is (still in 2013) a crime.
It used to be a crime in Alabama for a white woman to have consensual sex with a black man.

And sometimes what you are trying to hide is out of embarrassment rather then it being illegal. For example, most women are uncomfortable with the idea of policemen having the right to spy on them while they are showering and naked, because it creeps them out. Yet in lawless nations they can get away with it with impunity.

Being allowed to hide things from the government is the first step in protecting against tyranny.

>> No.27917077


So, in the purely hypothetical case that government were done away with, privacy would have become obsolete?

>> No.27917094

>and that anybody who doesn't share your political views is some sort of frothing-mouthed radical who has dared to stray from your belief system at the center of some ideological map.

>A Saudi court on Tuesday more than doubled the number of lashes that a female rape victim was sentenced to last year after her lawyer appealed the original sentence.

>I'm not sure why you quoted this. The saudis really are savages so they don't count.

I gave you an example of someone who disagrees with me on politics who is some mouth frothing radical. Why do they not count?

>> No.27917095


You're grossly distorting what a right to privacy means.

>What right do you have to deny me any of this information?
You can get just about any of this information through publicly available channels without violating an individual's right to privacy. No employer hires somebody without interviewing them first, and if it's a highly technical position, the prospective employee is going to have to provide references and sometimes take a technical exam.

>> No.27917106

It's perfectly logical, privacy hinders decision making by not letting us know all what we need.

>> No.27917118

For example, it hinders officials of the Iranian government decision to execute homosexuals by preventing them from knowing what they need (that person X is a homosexual)

>> No.27917139


And yet I have to wrest this knowledge from him in a metaphorical battle of wits, where one party tries to hide what they can, while the other one does its best to pry what information it can wrench from the first.

In a way, it's fair. Or it would be if it were between equals. That's hardly usually the case though. People are not equal in their ability.

>> No.27917154


>In the purely hypothetical case that the government were done away with

>> No.27917161

I mean, it's a total travesty that I can't pry open the Facebook pages of my potential employees, what if they're sexual deviants?

>> No.27917176

You know, I don't think there is any government in the world that doesn't distinguish between government spying on its citizens, and citizens spying on each other.

In china the government is allowed to do it.
In the USA the right to privacy in the constitution is ONLY privacy from government spying and NOT privacy from other citizen's (there are state laws that regulate or ban it, but its not in the constitution).

>> No.27917179


How would that even be relevant?

>> No.27917205

>>27917176 cont.
of course, just because the constitution says its illegal, doesn't mean they aren't doing it... what are they gonna do, arrest themselves? ha.

>> No.27917256

The thin blue line refers to police protecting each other from any and all fallout from when they abuse their power, let's say by tasing an epileptic man to death or shooting a man who reading a book in his car.

You are one of those jackboot faggots who thinks the police can do no wrong.

>> No.27917261

The constitution is just a handful of suggestions that the government can chose to listen to or not. Much like the codex astartes.

>> No.27917349


>World Socialism is totally a thing


I'm pretty sure private property still exists and the working class doesn't own the means of production

>> No.27917365

Its just one more american who thinks socialism means rich people pay taxes

>> No.27917381

>I've never read Karl Marx but everyone says he was an authoritarian statist and they're probably right. What a moron!

>> No.27917385

>The representatives of the people have declared it so, therefore it must be good.
Not all of us believe in the Infallibility and Divine Right of the Majority to fuck over everybody for all eternity.

>> No.27917391

you are insisting on marx original definition of socialism.
the modern definition of the word is quite different from it. and it is pretty much all nations

>> No.27917404


>his most fundamental view was the cronyism is caused by capitalism and free market, and that cronyism should be abolished

that's a funny way to spell "private property"

>> No.27917412


Who ever said that majority needs to be infallible? All that's been said is that majority calls the shots.

Which is arguably preferable to have minority call the shots and definitely more practical than to expect consensus from any amount of people that's more than three.

>> No.27917418

There are no socialist countries in the world, they are all state captialist

>> No.27917437

Marx didn't want totalitarianism, he just believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat should have absolute power. It's not totalitarianism if the good guys have absolute power, even though totalitarianism didn't become a perjorative until after World War II, and before then was used by communists, fascists and other collectivists to describe their vision of a holistic state.

>> No.27917447


here's a fun one too: why does ownership of property entitle you to profit from it, even if you have someone else make goods with it?

>> No.27917456

I forgot to greentext.

>remember when captcha was used to digitize books, instead of to record the number of photos of people's street numbers.

>> No.27917492

>There are no socialist countries in the world
Not according to marx definition which hasn't been used by anyone other them himself.
The actual definition as anyone is using it today is a country that provides welfare (aka wealth redistribution) and contains both nationalized and private properties simultaneously.

>> No.27917496

Because its your property, they are only able to make anything with it because you allow them.

>> No.27917522


But that's definition of "socialism" that only tea party and its disciples use. Here in Europe we call our countries "Mixed economies" or "welfare states", and they are mostly capitalistic with some social redistribution. Only libertarian sects call everyone non-libertarian a "socialist".

>> No.27917527


To paraphrase Milton Friedman "if government were run by angels, socialism would be awesome."

The problem is that it's impossible to give "the good guys" total power without having some of "the bad guys" eventually figure out how to get in and fuck everything up for everyone. You can't create a sustainable government with the requirement that the people running it have to be perfect.

>> No.27917530


>Though break. It's unavoidable except if majority wilfully and voluntarily refuses to go tyrannical over you.

yeahhhh....go fuck yourself with a cactus

>> No.27917531

>The actual definition as anyone is using it today is a country that provides welfare (aka wealth redistribution) and contains both nationalized and private properties simultaneously.

according to the encyclopedia britannica, it's the "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources".

>> No.27917549

>why does ownership of property entitle you to profit from it, even if you have someone else make goods with it?
Because that is the definition of private property. If it didn't do that then it isn't your property, by definition.
If you want, then argue for the abolishment of private property, not this nonsense

>> No.27917559

As long as we're assuming slavery is/should be illegal, the other person is profiting from it as well. You have to pay them for their time/energy/expertise.

>> No.27917561

>But that's definition of "socialism" that only tea party and its disciples use.
The fuck? this is the definition of socialism used all over the world for decades before the tea party ever formed.

>> No.27917571

>To paraphrase Milton Friedman "if government were run by angels, socialism would be awesome."
fun fact, this is EXACTLY what marx said too.

>> No.27917586

I have seen people argue that if you buy a car with your own money and hire a taxi driver he should get all the profits even though you provided the investment, its stupid.

>> No.27917594


politically active socialists disagree with you

check out the ISO or the IWW

>> No.27917614

Oh boy, thank goodness Obama is forcing me to buy a private service, and he has has even been so kind as to raise premiums and impose thousands of pages of regulations. Now I pay more for my insurance plan which no longer covers as much as it used to, but he says I might be able to keep my doctor. BOY OH BOY, maybe he'll raise the chocolate ration from five grams to three.

>> No.27917632

Just ask Google.

>> No.27917667


Yeah. He's giving healthcare to the poor. Oy vey, the tyranny! How dare he take from the rich and give to the poor!

>> No.27917684

The saudis believe themselves to be the ideological center of the political universe as well, and everybody else is a crazy radical who believes in things like religious liberty and not torturing rape victims.

Whereas you are most likely a some socialist who thinks he is at the ideological center of the political universe and everybody else is a crazy radical who believes in things like religious liberty and limited government.

>> No.27917695

>Yeah. He's giving healthcare to the poor.
We already had healthcare for the poor and old are medicare and medicaid.
And he raided both to fund his universal healthcare scheme, which is actually universal health INSURANCE not CARE.
1. Forcing people to buy something isn't "giving" it to them
2. Giving people insurance doesn't suddenly provide doctors.

>> No.27917697


no, its the definition of socialism used by *capitalists*. actual socialists (the people working to make it happen) use the real definition

I'd argue that the obfuscation of communism's real meaning (collective ownership of means of production, commodities produced as needed by the community, etc) is a tool to keep people from realizing how the system oppresses them, but I really don't want to talk about dominant ideology on fucking 4chan

>> No.27917718

>The saudis believe themselves to be the ideological center of the political universe as well, and everybody else is a crazy radical who believes in things like religious liberty and not torturing rape victims.
yes, but i happen to be right and they happen to be wrong.
>Whereas you are most likely a some socialist
what? opposing rape makes me a socialist?
Anyways, I am opposed to socialism.

>> No.27917736


Define "religious liberty" here. Is your religion actually being persecuted, or is this another "healthcare plans that don't expressly forbid abortions are literally killing the baby Jesus" thing?

>> No.27917754

>"healthcare plans that don't expressly forbid abortions are literally killing the baby Jesus" thing?
or the democrat view of "any healthcare plan where abortion isn't funded by taxpayer dollar is the same as enslaving women and being prorape"

>> No.27917779

I'm definitely missing something here. What's the counter-argument then?

>> No.27917781


Because those things are, at this time, illegal. You have, presuming you're 18+ and not a felon, the same input on what is legal and what isn't that every other person in America has...your vote. Sure, on its own, it's unlikely to matter, but the cost of diluting power is that nobody has very much of it.

>> No.27917783

>Are you losing an argument, shout that the other person hates the poor, women, or blacks.
Why have Obama, Congress, and their union buddies and business cronies all exempted themselves from Obamacare. Why is it good for us (so good we don't even get a choice), but bad for them

Also, the poor aren't helped by raising their premiums and reducing the quality of their healthcare, or by punishing them when they don't buy state insurance plans.

>> No.27917796

Or maybe we know the real meaning and just like to be able to own stuff and do what we want with it.

>> No.27917810

there was no counter argument, i was agreeing with him and ALSO pointed out that it is amusingly what marx said too.
Only freedman said it sarcastically because he knows it is impossible to manage to get an all angel run government, while marx thought it is a given the moment society rejects property ownership rights

>> No.27917822

>Also, the poor aren't helped by raising their premiums and reducing the quality of their healthcare, or by punishing them when they don't buy state insurance plans.
you see, the poor are too stupid to understand the value of health insurance and pass on it to buy useless things like food. By forcing them to buy it we act as a nanny and provide them with a better way to manage their limited funds.

>> No.27917847

>What is the Fourth Ammendment protecting citizens from illegal search and seizure?

>> No.27917898


Ah, so basically it was the Underpants Gnomes logic.
Step 1: Abolish private property
Step 2:???
Step 3: Socialist utopia!

>> No.27917910

Well yes, but that definition hurts our argument right now, so we are going to deny it and claim the definition was a plot by time-traveling libertarians. That was the old truth, but now we need to invent a new truth to protect our malignant ideology so that our narcissistic need to always be right remains unchallenged.

>> No.27917946

No, you fucking thickhead. My point is that thinking your way is the fucking center of the universe and anyone who might believe otherwise is either evil or fucking crazy encourages a close-minded and cult-like mentality. Why should you evaluate your beliefs when you are the center of the universe?

>> No.27917994

I am not the center of the universe. I am right and they are wrong because I constantly reevaluate my opinions with an open mind and have discarded over 90% of what I came up with in favor of better arguments made by others, backed by fact and history.

It so happens that most people who try to do that are retarded and are actually just looking for thin justifications for their preconceptions.

Is it possible that I am still wrong? yes, yes it is.
The problem is, the dumber and more gullible a person is, the more certain they are of their rightness and the more willing they are to enforce it. If everyone with a modicum of sensibility subscribed to the notion of "we must respect all opinions and not force our own view" then the only ones forcing their own view would be the retard fundamentalists. which is exactly what is happening IRL.

>> No.27918049

No, the logic is that in the long term owners of property and sellers of labour are so divergent as to make the system untenable when it faces one of its scheduled, endemic crises.

The socialism that followed would suffer a fair degree of human error and malice but wouldn't have to deal with political and economic power being concentrated in the hands of a small minority.

>> No.27918084

yes to underpants gnomes logic. but step 2 wasn't ???.

Marx plan was:
Step 1: Abolish private property & massively empower government
Step 2: Make all the people in government be angels.
Step 3: Socialist utopia!

The question is, how the fuck do you do step 2. His answer is that it happens automatically if you only put in power people who reject the evils of private property notions.

>> No.27918095

Ah, then you agree with me that the idea so prevalent in society that one's ideology is "moderate" and that everyone else is a crazy radical is a pernicious notion. I'm glad we had this conversation.

>> No.27918181

anarchists can be lawful. a personal code of ethics is lawful. capitalist however is not good.

>> No.27918196

A dogmatic Marxist communism would have a radically smaller government than the USA today. Marx didn't believe in either a standing army or government-led education "Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school " (Critique of the Gotha Programme)

>> No.27918209

>implying there is anyone anywhere who does not accept George Washington as their spiritual liege.

>> No.27918217

im sorry an anarchist bullied you for being fat.

>> No.27918254

communism falls apart because the benevolent dictator normally figures he likes his job and doesnt leave.

>> No.27918308

right, except one motherfucker will buy all of an important resource and become a dictator. thats what happens with capitalism

>> No.27918309

>mfw /tg/ is relatively keeping their shit together for a /pol/ topic such as this.

Summer really is real, during the summer this would've turned into an instant shitstorm.

>> No.27918314

>Didn't believe in government-led education
>What is tenth plank of communist manifesto

>> No.27918378


Wasn't the controversy over providing birth control, which makes sense, not abortions?

>> No.27918405


Where did this euphoria thing come from, anyway?

I remember the association of fat guys with fedoras with MRAs, and then MLP, but I don't see how they're all connected or what this new development is.

>> No.27918411

>someone buys all the air from... someone... and then becomes a dictator
how exactly does it work?
if he buys all factories making a product and starts charging too much, then new competitors will arise charging less. Only way to stop them is by engaging in anticapitalist behavior such as threatening other companies to not sell them the tools they need.

The only resource which can be monopolized in a free market is land (and indirectly whatever you dig out of it). However, capitalism does not mean anarcho-capitalism. Land taxes make it impossible and impractical to buy up and hold unto all land. Also, people are not immortal and have more than 1 child typically, so the land is constantly being redivided between descendants. And those often do not have the business acumen to hoard it so they sell it and it gets redistributed.

So far, nobody has managed to ever amass massive land ownership via honest trade. Many amassed massive land ownership via conquest though, the richest people in the world are various royals who inherited massive tracts of lands which they hoard

>> No.27918422

DnD good requires you to be selfless. You can be personally selfless while still advocating for a society free from "coercion", even if it results in the blackest of evil I guess, but does that make you good? I'd allow you to do it if I were DMing, but only if you had a really low wisdom and int. Otherwise, I'd say you were lawful evil and let you be a blackguard, since you understand where that philosophy will lead.

>> No.27918440

The Constitution isn't a suggestion, you goddamn Democrat, it's the law of the land that even the government is beholden to.

>> No.27918451

the controversy is over both
the latest political battle was over contraceptive because it was deemed an even easier target.
Tea party argued that people should buy their own contraceptives. Democrats and Republican establishment argued that taxpayer funded contraceptives for everyone is a god given right. And won

>> No.27918457

>The Constitution isn't a suggestion, you goddamn Democrat, it's the law of the land that even the government is beholden to.
that is what it SHOULD be, however in PRACTICE this isn't what is happening and everyone is happily going along shitting all over it.

>> No.27918470

>A society that respects the rights of others.
>Only low int, low wis person would support it.

>> No.27918471


Autumn/Winter/Spring /tg/ works and pays bills and are (mostly) contributing taxpayers. Less ideology gets tossed around because certain ideas are winnowed out by the realities of working adulthood.

The fact that both liberal and conservative positions are rationally viable for working, tax-paying adults should be a clue that the differences between them are vastly, vastly outweighed by the similarities, but good luck getting the extremists on either side to notice that.

It's further complicated by the fact that Ron Paul's "I don't agree but as a free person you have the right to do as you please without hurting others" Libertarianism and the Tea Party's "Religious Neoconservatism by another name" Libertarianism are two very different animals.

>> No.27918493

No. http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

And here's one for the ancaps:

The property surrounding yours is acquired by a businessman. He revokes the agreement you had with your neighbor, from whom he bought the land, that allowed you to walk across it to work. He tells you that you can agree to a totally voluntary slave contract and he'll take possession of everything you own and you get to work for him for subsistence. Otherwise, you're stuck on the plot of land that is your house and you can starve to death. If you step onto his land, you will be shot for trespassing. He also owns the local contract enforcement company. What do you do?

>> No.27918509


Sounds good to me. Where do I go to get my Obama-brand condoms?

Think about the reality, would you rather pay less for poor people's birth control, or more for them to keep having ten babies suckling the federal teat?

>> No.27918521

Kids, we gotta respect the factory owner's property rights. If we want to eat, you need to get those little hands into the machinery and earn your keep. If he had to pay even a small amount of his money to some sort of government it would be an infringement on his rights you know.

>> No.27918529

>AnCap is the same as Cap
Still going over that?

>He also owns the local contract enforcement company.
So, he is the local dictator and you are in fact not, in an AnCap society at all.

>> No.27918531


Constitution is just another law. Arguably a law of greather strength than other laws, but still just a law. And when the society decides that it no longer reflects the general idea of what is right, it ought to be changed to fit the new era.

Trying to enforce laws that no longer have broad support among populace is breeding ground for dissent and revolutionary waves.

>> No.27918571


Why are you assuming he's a Democrat, you filthy fucking backwards redneck Republicunt? Right, because you people can't compromise. Everyone who doesn't like your bullshit is part of the same group, clearly. How would you feel if we started slamming you, personally, for the government shutdown that cost the country MORE money and didn't even accomplish YOUR goals that YOU held the country hostage for?

>> No.27918582

If 66% of people want to ban guns they should be told to fuck off and stop trying to tell the other 33% they should not be allowed to enjoy a legitimate sport or defend themselves. Laws should be in place that prevent tyranny of the majority as far as possible. Same with if enough people are immoral or stupid enough to want to get rid of the right to free speech.

>> No.27918583

>Think about the reality, would you rather pay less for poor people's birth control, or more for them to keep having ten babies suckling the federal teat?
Heck, I am for free abortions and sterilizations for everyone because it would improve our genepool. And while at it, anyone who files for welfare should be forcibly sterilized.

I was just stating what the argument was about

Now, in principle, people should pay for their own damn contraceptives AND they should pay for their own damn children once born.
In PRACTICE we are going to be paying for those children to suckle on the government's teat once born. So until we can win the battle to abolish welfare we are better off funding government abortions.

>> No.27918606


I think we've already settled long ago that anarchism and capitalism are not compatible with human nature.

Since when someone grows powerful enough, he will invariably begin to exert this power over others and the anarchist buble suddenly pops like a virtual particle pair.

>> No.27918615


This. I'd be fine with Ron Paul. So what if he's a Creationist kook? He's not trying to force it on ME. The modern Tea Party actively want religion back in government, which is indefensible, and think that gridlock is a 'good' thing because 'we wanted a smaller government anyway'.

>> No.27918616


And liberals are also very confused. You have the economic liberals who care about the welfare of the poor and of their nation's security and infrastructure needs.

And THEN you have the college campus thought police that only care about social issues, and the fiscal issues they DO care about is usually some boring communist ideology.

>> No.27918621

2/3rd of population wants to ban guns
2/3rd of population wants to ban gays

People are far more concerned with taking rights away from other people than preserving their own rights.

>> No.27918633

You said that the richest people are royals who amassed a bunch of land. This is not correct. How does enforcing his absolute property rights make him a dictator? Unless you're suggesting he should be forced to allow someone through his property. If you're not an ancap that makes sense by the way, but the question was directed at them.

>> No.27918641

>I think we've already settled long ago that anarchism and capitalism are not compatible with human nature.
no, we settled communism and arnarcho-capitalism are not compatible with human nature
Capitalism is not the same as anarcho-capitalism despite what socialists wish

>> No.27918645


Yeah, well, if at least 50 % people agree with your opinion on that, you guys can chalk that up in constitution of your new country. Or more than that as it were, since constitutions tend to require more than narrow majority.

Otherwise you are free to defend your "rights" from the majority as a band of outlaws. Maybe there'll be a story about you one day, or maybe you'll manage to keep hold of your own country where you are the majority.

>> No.27918654

I concur with you, and that's what I was trying to get at.

>> No.27918657

>The modern Tea Party actively want religion back in government
the fuck, since when?

>> No.27918658

How is your post helping the discussion at all? It's jumping to conclusion from the very start ad going off of that making what your saying completely illegitimate.

tl;dr shut up dumbass.

>> No.27918666


If we abolish welfare, we'd better have a system that actually guarantees equality of opportunity first. As it stands, starting out rich makes everything much, much easier, even for a person of mediocre ability.

>> No.27918676

He's about to post an article or a quote out of context to prove his illegitimate point because of his biased views.

>> No.27918686


So, there are responsible adults on both sides, approaching their viewpoints for rational and thought-out reasons, as well as morons who think they know how the world works and just want the system to benefit them in particular?

Who'd've thunk it?

>> No.27918700

>if you lose your job or cannot find a job immediately despite there not being enough to go round you deserve to be sterilised

Also you are aware in most European countries this means you would sterilise all the smart people right?

>> No.27918707

>Who'd've thunk it?

Centrism is too boring for people to accept. Humans want to wage crusades against each other for no real reason other than they can.

>> No.27918724


Have you not been following any of them at all?

>> No.27918730

Constitutions should not be decided by fucking committee or mob rule.

>> No.27918740

>despite there not being enough to go round
only reason that is the case is government destroying the economy.

>So, there are responsible adults on both sides
there is not a single responsible, intelligent, reasonable adult who is firmly in the pocket of either democrats or republicans.
There are people who VOTE for one party or another because they think its the lesser evil though.

Seriously in 2012 less than 50% of eligible voters actually voted, and of that most who did voted for the lesser evil instead of a candidate they actually liked.

>> No.27918756


I don't really see why you bothered responding to yourself.

>> No.27918759

Are you trying to imply that just because more than 50% of people support something that makes it right? Especially in the cases where the majority want to remove a right they have no business even trying to interfere with.

>> No.27918766

Being temporary unemployed does not mean you immediately go on welfare. you have to actually APPLY, willingly.
And unemployment insurance is mandatory thing you pay for every month, it is an unusual form of welfare in that you actually do pay for the "service", you are just FORCED to buy it and its subsidized by the government nowadays.

>> No.27918771


Because the idea of being the heroic yet morally justified underdog fighting against an overwhelmingly powerful and entrenched enemy is ingrained into our minds from a young age as a noble ideal, and everyone wants to be a protagonist.

>> No.27918772

Based on this logic the Occupy Wall Street crowd were all white upperclass flag burning commies who had trust funds and 3 bedroom apartments.

>> No.27918777

There will never be 100% employment, your fucking stupid and immoral plan makes people choose between losing their house and being sterilised.

>> No.27918784

>Ann coulter is the face of the tea party
>Ann coulter fought the tea party when proclaiming her undying loyalty to romney and how awesome his cock is in her mouth

>> No.27918789


Fuk you m8

>> No.27918794

>there is not a single responsible, intelligent, reasonable adult who is firmly in the pocket of either democrats or republicans.

There are plenty. Being intelligent does not make one infallible, and it's easy, especially with the internet, to only expose oneself to an echo chamber of one's own beliefs, and come to the conclusion that anyone thinking differently than you must be insane, stupid, or evil to hold such views.

>> No.27918808


>> No.27918810

>Take out loan you cannot afford to pay to "buy" a house
>Put aside 0 dollars in a saving account
>Get fired
>Take some time to find a new job
Wow, its like you are a complete retard who cannot even take care of himself.

>> No.27918835


You mean they weren't?

>> No.27918838

>some time

There are people who have been trying to find a job for months or years, savings only go so far. With how shitty the economy is sterilising people who are out of work is even more stupid than it normally is, plenty of smart people are out of work.

And how is this any different than being kicked out because you can no longer pay for the rent?

>> No.27918851


That's not Anne goddamned Coulter you faggot.

>> No.27918885


Don't give a damn who you are, but I'm tempted to go find sources for myself just so you can rant yourself into a tizzy claiming anything from a non-TP source is illegitimate and biased.

That said, the Tea Party has long since ceased to be a source for sane libertarians who just want to live free of the Fed's boot, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

>> No.27918895

>With how shitty the economy is
A symptom of this government shitting all over the economy.

>There are people who have been trying to find a job for months or years
Liquidate some assets

>sterilising people who are out of work
No, sterilizing people who are sucking on the government teat. You don't have to be employed to avoid sucking on the government teat.

>> No.27918913


>> No.27918917

>Don't give a damn who you are
His argument was that you are insisting different people are the same anon. As you quoted 3 different people and insisted they are 1 person.

>> No.27918967

You seem to think the average person has assets to liquidate, a lot of people who have jobs can barely afford to stay afloat. Why do you think people who cannot work deserve to slowly lose everything they have until they are homeless?

>> No.27918973

A paladin upholds a code, not the laws of the state.

>> No.27918977


Wasn't me claiming any such thing, bro. I just took offense to the "I bet any source is illegitimate and is just confirmation of his biases" line, that was my entry into this thread. It lowers the tone of the debate further and it's stupid no matter what side engages in it.

Besides posting George Washington, our spiritual liege, here. >>27918209

The post with George was me. I admit it. Feel free to judge me for admiring Glorious George.

>> No.27918990


Because they didn't use their prosthetic hands to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

>> No.27918993

If you want to shitpost than just say so.

>> No.27919038


If I did, I would. Doesn't the fact that anyone disagreeing with your childish views and debating tactics is, by your view, shitposting indicate you are not interested in rational debate and rather shoving your views across through some sort of internet aggressiveness that is meaningless in an online medium, combined with shouting down your opponents?

>> No.27919065


The guy made a shit point, and I predicted he's back up this shit point with a strawman and you somehow still want to debate. So either you're a moron or an epic le troll.

>> No.27919111


Don't bother, dude, the idea of not being able to afford food for your family is completely foreign to him. He might rationally be able to conceive of it, but he's never been in that situation, or doesn't realize how relatively minor mistakes can permanently fuck up your life and stop you from ever getting out of the gutter.

In his mind, it's lazy black people deciding they don't wanna work today and asking Obama for their cut of the US treasury, and that if you scold them enough they'll turn into productive upper-middle-class small businessmen full of rugged individualism and Galtian work ethic.

>> No.27919131

>You seem to think the average person has assets to liquidate
they do if they care to you shit. I have slaved away for years, put myself through college living off ramen, saved money, and worked low paying jobs.
Still able to put money aside for saving. Biggest problem is taxes really. Last year I paid 7000$ on 38k to help those so called "poor" who are in risk of "losing their house" (I rent).

>Why do you think people who cannot work deserve to slowly lose everything they have until they are homeless?
wow, nice loaded question there.. whats next "why do you hate america"?

1. If they do become homeless then they aren't sucking on the government's teat
2. So now they can't work? Since when did we go from discussing the able bodied to discussing cripples?
3. If they are able bodied, and the economy isn't broken, then this wouldn't happen

Right now the US economy is indeed fucked to shit, not their fault, retard's in Washington fault
But the solution isn't "raise taxes" and "moar welfare". This just destroys productive jobs to fund temporary government payouts.

And while we are at it. Do away with the EPA or ban importing of goods from countries that don't apply equal rules

>> No.27919156

>no rational response
>image macros

Alright, I'll bite, buddy. Who are the visible faces of the Tea Party, and why should people not be expected to judge the Tea Party by those same people? It's never a Moderate Republican or a Democrat claiming that the First Amendment only exists to protect Christians, or that the Pledge of Allegiance with Under God included has existed longer than the 1950s.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them" and all of that. It's all well and good that you, personally support them without the religious bullshit...but that isn't what the Tea Party lawmakers think, or the ones making the most noise and thus being catered to.

>> No.27919158

ps. and i currently have 20k in savings.

>> No.27919180


>> No.27919202

You do not understand, lots of people have to choose between food and heating while working a full time job. This idiotic and delusional idea that there would be full employment and all jobs would pay enough to live on without any other help if the government would just go away is not helping anybody.

>> No.27919213


How do we sustainably create more jobs when our middle-tier jobs are steadily being replaced by computers or outsourced labor, while retail is swelling like a pus-infused blister on a Colombian farmer's inner thigh?

Just thought it would be more interesting to argue about. As it is, we've got a bottleneck, and like it or not our system is creating vast numbers of poor and/or unemployable people. What changes should we make in the system BESIDES eliminating welfare? How do we make it so that we don't need it anymore?

>> No.27919240

>guy who thought shutting down the government was a good idea for anyone but other Conservatives gunning for Boehner's job
>Rush Fucking Limbaugh
>Rush Limbaugh's buddy

And the Tea Party is supposed to be sane? Even ignoring the huge religious segments of it, these guys are nutballs and you know it.

>> No.27919258

So? anybody with savings is losing money, inflation is about twice the average interest rate on a savings account.

>> No.27919276

>three people who aren't taken seriously by anyone

I hope you're not the guy being responded to, because I'm still hoping for actual people, not crazy radio pundits and "shutdown will stop Obamacare" Cruz.

>> No.27919302


There's always Sarah Palin.

>> No.27919309

>You do not understand, lots of people have to choose between food and heating while working a full time job.
As of July 24 2009
Minimum wage in the usa is 7.25 USD
Full time job that comes out to 13920 a year.
-650$/mo rent (what I pay)
it comes out to 6120
-50$/mo heating
divide by 12
460/mo for food.

This is assuming they put in 0 overtime and actually work minimum wage instead of something higher. There are a fuckton of low end jobs that DO pay higher.

The people who actually have trouble putting food on the table are the ones who can't find a job at all or can't find a full time job. This is NOT their fault but the fault of washingon with their retarded wealth redistribution schema which give a little money now for the "low price" of annihilating the economy.

10 years ago we weren't in such a shit creek. But the government had to have its sub prime loan mandata (banks were forced to lend), and then they had to have their bailouts for banks, and stimulus (shovel ready my ass), and bailout for auto industry...
All the while banning energy exploration, getting ever stricter with the EPA while opening up trade with countries that do not apply such rules, etc.

You want to see true government caused poverty look outside the usa. Like in mexico

>> No.27919314

Because you were lucky and got and hold a job that paid for more than the expenses. The reality is that wages are in a fuckton of cases not enough to even afford heating, any food above instant ramen or even the gas for your beater to go to work, since what little jobs are left pay the arbitrarily low minimum.
And thrn you have sn accident, get sick and you're fucked for life.

>> No.27919331

>So? anybody with savings is losing money, inflation is about twice the average interest rate on a savings account.
which occurs because the government is printing money like there is no tomorrow. Which is a stealth tax. They are stealing money from everyone who has savings whenever they print a dollar, and rewarding money to anyone who takes out a loan.
This sends a very clear signal and forces people to not save.

>> No.27919392

I am curious, how much do you make mister emotion and caring? And how many hours a week you work for it.

Also, how is "some people are really poor" defend your position that welfare is wonderful and does NOT in fact cause more harm then good?

>> No.27919427


Outsider here, your situation isn't taking children into effect, or non-food non-heating necessities like gasoline, or a phone (good luck getting any job without a car or a phone). In fact, since we're assuming you have a car you aren't making payments on anymore, what happens when that car breaks down? Do you have insurance? That's another bill to tack on there.

>> No.27919451

>position that welfare is wonderful and does NOT in fact cause more harm then good?

That is not what was said. It was just pointed out that forcing people to choose between sterilisation and homelessness is psychotic and not in the least helpful to anybody. You cannot say its not their fault then turn around and say they deserve to be sterilised for not wanting to be chucked out onto the street.

>> No.27919454


Was electricity included in there? If not, it should be, unless you only recharge your phone via a car charger and don't have any appliances.

>> No.27919467

Not to mention water and internet.

>> No.27919474


Does more harm than good to who, exactly? There are plenty of rock-bottom poor people who work multiple jobs and still require food stamps to feed their kids. Quit pretending you're a rugged individualist, fucko, you don't know what "bills" are.

>> No.27919475

>Outsider here, your situation isn't taking children into effect
it doesn't take into account a spouse that help pay for them either.
If you are a single mom on mimum wage then you done did fuck up and should be sterilized so that you stop squirting out kids you cannot afford to provide for.

I would love to have a bunch of kids, but I can't afford to so I DON'T.

>> No.27919488


If you work any halfway decent job, you're more or less required to have an email, so internet should definitely be on there as a necessity.

Water I completely forgot about.

>> No.27919491

>Does more harm than good to who, exactly?
everyone. the poor can't find jobs
the middle class is shrinking
and the amount of millionere in the USA went down by 40% since 2008.

The wage gap has decreased though, because now everyone is poorer. Good job!

>> No.27919511

>a spouse actually paying in and not vampirizing your life after the divorce, spending the child support money you send her on fake gold earings and lipo.

I have some very nice unicorn pelts to sell you, my friend. And a new Sisters of Battle codex that doesn't suck.

>> No.27919524

I also assumed they live in a nice apartment instead of a trailer, which would reduce it from 650/mo to 50/mo

>> No.27919529

>have job, have boyfriend with job
>get knocked up
>he vanishes

Sure sounds like her fault, bro.

>> No.27919549

>thinking trailers are 50/month

Hahahahahaha, man, I would love to live where you do and never experience actual poverty.

>> No.27919560

well obviously I am not so dumb as to marry american.
There are some very nice girls in latin america. Go on a trip.

1. child support. government is on your side.
2. how is this an argument that she shouldn't be sterilized so that she stops popping out deadbeat's children because she is such a horrible judge of character and can't use contraceptives?

>> No.27919594

>people deserve to be sterilised because they were misled or deceived and contraception failed

Fuck anybody who meets a good liar right.

>> No.27919629

>The dumbest, most gullible people should squirt out 12 kids and the middle class should pay for them, thus being unable to afford their own children
no wonder the average person is so stupid and gullible, its evolution in action.
Its not like I am arguing for forced abortions like they practice in china.

>> No.27919640

>well obviously I am not so dumb as to marry american.

We're speaking ironically, right? Neither of us own fedoras?

Latin American girls get fucking bitchy and entitled if you get into any sort of money. Never date a hot one. Find a plain one who can cook, and she will be your ideal waifu forever, and still work because she wants the extra cashflow. You'd think Asians would be alright, but they lose their good looks fast and are even more entitled than white women. Their parents, unlike yours or mine, still tell them outright to marry into money or be disowned/shamed.

>> No.27919662

No you just want to force them to be sterilised, so much better right.

>> No.27919685

to clarify, the example woman (minimum wage worker with no education, gullible enough to get knocked up by deadbeat who disappears, too dumb to use contraceptives, and refuses to get an abortion in this case). Yea, she had her kid, now its time to stop.

>Latin American
Do you mean latin girls in USA? or do you mean girls who grew up in south america?

I want them to get an abortion, not get knocked up in the first place, or pay for their own child so I can finally afford my own as my tax burden decreases.
But if they refuse all that, I would consent to helping them finance the child... if they get sterilized so that its the last one.

>> No.27919691

>a specific example is the norm
>child support does anything while Tyrone is in prison.

Yes, clearly we should just follow your example, and be middle-class background whites who can rely on family money if we get into real trouble (you still haven't accounted for how, exactly, one pays for utilities on minimum wage...which honestly makes me doubt your story about living independently, if I was on my home computer and not my relative's I'd just post my budget sheet to demonstrate) and never make mistakes, because that is completely normal for human beings. One bad choice and one kid should totally screw up your life forever.

>> No.27919722

The current welfare system requires the woman be single, so the man is FORCED to leave the house so that she is eligible for it.
Wow, improvement! /sarcasm

also, since when is being sterilized AFTER having some kids, in exchange for a monthly stipend, screws up your life up forever?

>> No.27919744

>middle-class background whites
whose population is shrinking in every country with welfare. averaging 1.5 kids a couple. As they pay for others to have a dozen children.

>> No.27919766

>no education

She likely had public schooling, but couldn't afford college, which is very common and fits most minimum wage employees.

>gullible enough to get knocked up by deadbeat who disappears

They always seem nice and responsible until he leaves. Guys DO leave even if they have jobs when they hear the word "baby"

>too dumb to use contraceptives

Contraceptives fail, and there is no way to enforce chastity on a human populace, it goes against all instincts of the human race.

What you're attempting to do is recast a very commonplace example of the sort of person who DOES need the services government provides, and recast them as a subhuman. It's a very disturbing chain of rationalizations, but you're accustomed to getting away with it because on /pol/ you'd have an echo chamber of people hooting "tie the sheboon's tubes", and get by on the racism card. That doesn't work on /tg/. No living human race will ever be as bad as fucking kender to us, and that's just the way it is.

>> No.27919777

>She likely had public schooling, but couldn't afford college, which is very common and fits most minimum wage employees.
I paid my own college, using a min wage job and eating almost nothing but ramen.

>> No.27919790


Why is the anti-welfare crowd predominantly anti-abortion, too?

And if she wasn't able to support her child, you wouldn't suddenly be able to support one of your own, that isn't how taxes work and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

>> No.27919800

How is it RACISM?
I don't care if she is white, black, asian, etc.

>> No.27919809


Sure you did. I'm completely convinced from your smug method of debate, and seeming complete unfamiliarity with poverty that you paid your own way, eating almost nothing but ramen and paying for your own place all on minimum wage. Unless you're a very, very oldfag from well before tuition costs started to balloon.

>> No.27919814

>Why is the anti-welfare crowd predominantly anti-abortion, too?
because the majority of them are conservative, as such they try to uphold tradition. In the united states this tradition is classical liberalism (no welfare, capitalism, freedom of opportunity) and at the same time religion.

Conservatives in other countries have different views because each country has different traditions for conservatives to uphold.

>> No.27919832

I am 29 and had to take breaks to save money because I couldn't afford to pay it out every semester, plus student loans. (from before they were nationalized)

>> No.27919839


I've never seen that line of argument, specifically demeaning the woman's intelligence and effort and blaming her for mistakes everybody makes, without at some point attempting to cast her as a drug-addict or "she's spittin' out dem nigglets from her cooch". You can, of course, claim on the internet to be the one exception, the rare white buffalo among the herd, but you cannot expect it to be taken seriously.

>> No.27919854

>>27919814 cont.
that being said, I am both anti welfare and pro abortion.

>> No.27919859


You didn't have a child, however.

>> No.27919879

trash is trash, whether its white trash or black trash is the same to me.
I don't want to pay for trailer trash white women's bastard children the same way as I don't want to pay for a black womans, or an asian one, or a latino.
It really isn't that hard to understand.

yep. I kept in my pants, knowing that contraceptives are imperfect and that I cannot afford one right now, I avoided vaginal sex.

>> No.27919926


Yes, but that viewpoint makes sense, to a degree, I'm not entirely up on the specifics of American economics and why welfare might or might not be needed in your country.

Why would anyone educated choose to be both anti-welfare and anti-abortion?

>> No.27919990

They are anti abortion because their religion says so.

They are anti welfare because their religion doesn't strongly go either way on it
but their forefathers opposed it...
They are anti welfare because they are educated enough to know the damage it causes (ex: requiring a woman to kick out the father of her kicks to get welfare has caused a lot of men to end up homeless and the kids to grow without a father)

Also, worth noting is that a whole fuckton of christians ARE actually pro welfare anti-abortion. Because they believe jesus would have been pro welfare.

>> No.27920077

>a fa/tg/uy bragging about having the good sense not to have kids.


>> No.27920730


But they are


But that's, barring divine intervention, the case for all practical purposes.

Constitution is just a piece of paper that most people agree has some meritable rules written on top of it. It has absolutely zero divine importance itself. Ark of the Covenant is much more interesting from that point of view.

>> No.27920971


>The poor can't find jobs because of welfare
That's bullshit. If anything, welfare creates more jobs since it boosts demand of people who would otherwise have nothing to spend

>The middle class is shrinking because of welfare
How? Because they have to pay taxes? If anything, middle class suffers more for being displaced from their jobs by Indian and large amount of educated workforce available and unemployed. Coupling education with debt burden doesn't help either, although hats off if you manage to get through college while learning something AND keeping a job to avoid the debt.

>Amount of millionaires went down after the crisis
...has more to do with demand dropping and the aforementioned outsourcing trends than evil welfare.
what about amount of billionaires?

>> No.27921052

>That's bullshit. If anything, welfare creates more jobs
>this is what some leftards actually believe

>> No.27921118


I realize it might come across as a surprise that not everyone believes in the one true & infallible god of free market.

>> No.27921225

that picture looks awesome. I would love to live in such a society. It is, however, impossible because such a society cannot field the armies needed to defend itself from usurpation of power.

>> No.27921273

google search actually doesn't find anything for this
what is the source on it?

>> No.27921527


Probability Broach.

It's one of the libertarians fapfics from "Big head press". It's fairly amusing to read.

>> No.27922364

it's funny the kind of arguments you see against ancaps, next you will be asking about the roads.

>> No.27923465


In my experience, it all derives from self-interest. There is no one unified non-competing self-interest for all of society, politics is not just an argument over means. It is also a fight over ends that are at odds with one another.

For example, people who own property and those who lend money are driven by self-interest towards policies and rhetoric at odds with those of people who work for a wage and those who borrow money.

This can be nuanced as well. For instance farmers own property rather than work for wages, but also borrow rather than lend money. So for them in particular, deliberate inflation through currency devaluation has historically been a desirable policy (even though it hurts the other property holders that have lent them money, by effectively transferring wealth from the lender to the loan-holder; and hurts other borrowers who live in cities and work for wages, as now manufactured goods from foreign lands will be more expensive and cost of living will increase).

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.