/liberty/ - Liberty

>>11473

What are these ebonics? I can't even understand what this nigger is saying. How can I argue something I can't even fucking understand due to lacking tardspeak as a language?

Like this: Read a fucking book already, this is anarchocapitalism 101.

bump

>>11473

>WAAAAHHH I HAVE TO GET A JOB

maybe it'd be easy if you didn't just jerk off all day and actually had a social life.

Getting a job is easy if you actually know how to talk to people. if you get bombarded with retarded questions like this you are letting them directly control the flow of the conversation. it's a two way street dipshit. take one of these questions and get creative and make the conversation interesting.

>>12373

What about the autists who don't even have the cognitive capacity to be good conversationalists? Let them rot?

Yes and no.

They'd probably just give you a test (since it wouldn't be illegal) to test your knowledge of how to do the job instead of all this bullshit.

So if you're shit at your job, you won't get it, but if you know what you're doing, you might just. The trick is all the jobs this fucker is discussing are low-wage low-skill jobs. They aren't the jobs that require even basic skills like welding that anyone could pick up if they wanted to earn more money.

>>12482

That's the implication, yes.

Let 'em get a job through a family members and go from there.

>>12572

The purpose of job interviews isn't to assess if they have the amazing skill necessary to stand all day and push buttons, it's to see if they'll be a good little classcuck.

>>12609

Job interviews are meant to make sure you're not a massive autist. Most jobs require you to work in teams, and thus require good teamwork or leadership skills, plus an employer doesn't want to hire someone with a toxic personality that might make others quit or lower productivity even though they're a good worker. Likewise, if you work with customers you must have a good personality to make sure they come back to you in the future, and this is shown through interviews. An employer wants to mildly enjoy their employee's presence if he has to work with him, and this is amplified by the attitude of government in making it difficult to fire people (actually, this is one of the bes examples of how a boss works better than a co-op since any attempt to fire someone in said co-op would be a pain in the ass if some employers were the employee's friend/you'd see even worse interviews to make sure you aren't a little bitch).

Your "classcuck" arguement fails to hold in the face of what's required to run a company, and it's pretty obvious you've never had managerial experience or worked with managers. Go start your own business if you dislike interviews.

Sauce: I've worked heavily with many small business managers, and had been the assistant manager for a grocery chain when I was 19.

>>12572

>me: Let them rot?

>ancap: That's the implication, yes.

Ancaps don't even bother to hide the fact that they lack empathy and would like to see people with disabilities rot.

And you know if you don't show any empathy to autistic people, don't whine when autistic adults strike back (ie. Elliot Rodger, Chris Harper-Mercer, etc.)

>>12611

There's people with disabilities that are manageable to which we say "they can live a fulfilling life through hard work and possibly charity."

Then there's people with disabilities that are crippling and make them a burden on society.

AnCaps believe that lack of social safety nets would lead to a demand for gene therapy to permanently fix their dissabilities if they're that severe. We aren't going to sugar coat it and say everyone will be alright because we don't know if they would.

In the vast majority of socialist paradises, they happen to shoot retarded kids and those with dissabilities such as blindness because they're "a burden on society" and can't be retaught easily. /leftypol/ has said so themselves on numerous occasions, so get off your high horse.

>>12612

>Implying that isn't the work of govt. Indoctrination, globalism, and feminism

Elliot would be considered strange but would likely have found a grill (or just have never been born) in an AnCap society.

>>12614

Keep in mind also that with mass deregulation of the medical field, you'd begin to see personalized healthcare that far exceeds current healthcare at a fraction of the price. South Korea is seeing medical deregulation benefits first hand.

>>12614

I'm a social democrat, not a Soviet Union sympathizer. lol. Real socialism or communism hasn't lasted very long.

I also don't think socialism or communism is achievable. The state military-industrial complex has grown so strong that it's impossible to stage a successful coup in a developed country. Any sort of working-class violent revolution will be quickly suppressed by the hired bodyguards of the state. And democratic socialism won't work. Socialist Alternative wants to nationalize all Fortune 500 companies (the top 500 corporations in America). Yea good luck with that. How about we start with more modest goals like an unconditional basic income, comprehensive public health insurance, free tuition, nationalization of key industries and raising taxes on the rich? Even these social democratic goals are an uphill battle. And yet Socialist Alternative wants to nationalize the Forbes 500?

>>12614

Also want to make it clear that even though I post in /leftypol/, I don't agree with the fascist views of the tankies (Soviet Union sympathizers). We are not all tankies. The forum is made up primarily of either tankies or anarchists. And a minority of socdems. Any anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist who thinks it's ok to sterilize or even kill people with disabilities is #notmycomrade. If a tankie spouts these things, well it's a tankie. I don't take them seriously. lol. It's like arguing with a /pol/ neo-nazi.

>>12612

I don't know about Chris Harper-Mercer, but Elliot Rodger had a shitty personality and deserved zero empathy. Have you read any excerpts from his manifesto? He was an entitled shit from the upper-class. "Society" didn't turn Elliot Rodger into a killer, that was his own, free decision.

>>12615

What the hell?

>Elliot would be considered strange but would likely have found a grill (or just have never been born) in an AnCap society.

Yeah, right. Nope, the fuck would've kept living his shitty life and then get shot the second he decided to start his little publicity-stunt. Elliot was human trash, even before his attack.

>>12612

Perhaps I missed something, but have I fallen into some sort of alternate universe where "empathy" is synonymous with "give them jobs that they are not qualified to perform and force other people at gunpoint to give them their money"?

The number of people in this world who are too autistic or otherwise disabled to hold down any sort of job are a tiny minority. In addition to what >>12614 and >>12616 said, private charity would more than cover such a tiny number of people.

Shit, we've seen what happens when the government tries to give the disabled their special brand of "help", and it resulted in the employment rate of the disabled falling somewhere in the neighborhood of 20%. If you have any empathy in your heart for the disabled, you'll support deregulation, because that's their best shot.

>>12621

I guess I should point out, since this discussion is about anarcho-capitalism, that I'm technically just in favor of very very small government, but I feel that it doesn't make a difference in this case because I likely feel the same as they do on this issue.

>>12621

On /leftypol/ someone posted an article which showed that libertarians scored lower on empathy, charity, generosity, etc. than both liberals AND conservatives. And you expect me to believe that libertarians would give to private charity if we lived in a libertarian world?

At least the poster above was honest when he said that he doesn't give a fuck about autistic adults and would like to see them rot.

The difference between right-libertarians and left-libertarians like myself is that we left-libertarian acknowledge that humans are consumed with avarice by nature. And so we need things like a basic income, comprehensive public health insurance, free tuition, nationalization of key industries, etc. to protect the most vulnerable elements of our society.

As well as artists, writers, creative types, intellectuals, volunteers, etc. who don't do well in the "free market" but still provide a valuable service to society. Even if they don't get paid much for what they do. Just because the service you provide requires nets little or no monetary remuneration does not mean it's not a valuable service to society. There's more to life than GDP growth. Unpaid labour is also valuable as well. Why shouldn't housewives not in the workforce get a basic income? They engage in unpaid childcare labour, homemaking labour, etc. Why should they have to be dependent on their husband financially? Why should the husband have all the discretion in determining how much of a spending allowance (if at all) his wife is allowed to have?

I believe in liberty. But liberty to me doesn't mean wanting to pay less taxes so that you can buy ten Ferraris and ten yachts instead of 1 each while people are legit homeless, freezing their ass off and going hungry. In need of medical care and not getting it.

>>12624

>At least the poster above was honest when he said that he doesn't give a fuck about autistic adults and would like to see them rot.

If you're going to make assumptions about me as an individual based on a single, unspecified article that's probably complete bullshit anyway, then I refuse to entertain this conversation any further.

Seriously, fuck you, you little shit.

>>12626

triggered

>>12624

>On /leftypol/ someone posted an article which showed that libertarians scored lower on empathy, charity, generosity, etc. than both liberals AND conservatives.

This one?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

No need to thank me.

>And you expect me to believe that libertarians would give to private charity if we lived in a libertarian world?

Some libertarians would. If libertarians were less generous, on average, than liberals, that would not mean that there wouldn't be any generous libertarians. Your entire argument is one big non sequitur.

>>12625

>And so we need things like a basic income, comprehensive public health insurance, free tuition, nationalization of key industries, etc. to protect the most vulnerable elements of our society.

So basically, you want a big government. Sure, that's very libertarian, I guess.

>Why shouldn't housewives not in the workforce get a basic income?

Because someone would have to pay them. Why should the housewife get a basic income? Why shouldn't I get a basic income while I shitpost on imageboards all day? Am I not performing a service to society by telling fatties how to deadlift properly? By what right does anyone decide whether a pastime is worth being subsidized?

>I believe in liberty. But liberty to me doesn't mean wanting to pay less taxes so that you can buy ten Ferraris and ten yachts instead of 1 each while people are legit homeless, freezing their ass off and going hungry. In need of medical care and not getting it.

Oh, fuck off! You're blatantly arguing against the evilbad libertarian CEO here. Why not, I don't know, argue against a libertarian who is actually in this thread? I have yet to see a real, living, breathing libertarian claim that the most important thing for him is to have ten yachts and twenty submarines, even if that means people in the streets will be starving.

>>12633

>2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style;

how horrible!

>>12634

Right-libertarians focus on negative liberty (the right of a trust fund kid to inherit assets from their parents, the right to own a shitload of land, own 10 Lamborghinis and yachts, etc). While left-libertarians focus on positive liberty (giving people the means to participate economically).

Basic income is universal. I'm not sure if you have heard about this policy proposal before. Basic income is actually something that Milton Friedman talked about before. Except he envisioned a "negative income tax" model where only people below a certain level of income would receive the basic income. And their basic income amount would be reduced by 50% for every dollar they earned privately. Milton Friedman's model was not the universal model.

The idea of a universal basic income is that everyone would receive an income that would be enough for them to live on (pay for rent, food, clothing, transportation, household appliances/items, personal care items, etc.) But then any income earned above a basic income (ie. employment and investment income) would be taxed to pay for it. And considering that marginal income taxes used to be as high as 90% for rich people in the United States (Eisenhower, that socialist I tell ya!), I don't see why increasing taxes on the rich is such a bad idea.

If rich people want to take their money and go move abroad, go ahead. My basic income policy will create inflation. So we need some deflation anyway to counteract that. Rich people leaving the country and taking their money with them is perfect. That is exactly what I want to happen. Balanced budgets and national debts you see are a spook. The national debt is money that the US government owes to itself (check out Modern Monetary Theory. Professor Warren Mosler has a good book on the subject). It doesn't matter that the government runs a deficit. If the money is being held abroad. It only becomes a problem when the money re-enters the country. At that point, it would have to be taxed.

>>12636

>Right-libertarians focus on negative liberty (the right of a trust fund kid to inherit assets from their parents, the right to own a shitload of land, own 10 Lamborghinis and yachts, etc).

Also the right of everyone who does not want ot get shot or, I don't know, get his house taken from him. You act like only rich people have property. Guess what? Poor people have property, too, and to them, it might be even more valuable. When Donald Trump loses his house because the government took it from him, he can easily build himself a new one. Same thing happens to a poorfag, he'll be sleeping in his mothers three-room-appartment for a month while looking for a new one.

>While left-libertarians focus on positive liberty (giving people the means to participate economically).

You can't increase positive liberty without decreasing negative liberty. For every person you promise to build a house for, you have to take money from someone else. By doing that, you assume your authority over their property and, hence, their ability to care for themselves; if they don't comply, they will eventually be assaulted or locked up, so you also assume authority over their very body and freedom. "Give us money or we'll do terrible things to you!" is the kind of thing a streetgang would say, and it's the same thing the government does. Yet I never see anyone admit that. Consequentialists are somehow not content with merely stating that robbery is not always bad, they are afraid of admitting it's even robbery.

>And considering that marginal income taxes used to be as high as 90% for rich people in the United States (Eisenhower, that socialist I tell ya!), I don't see why increasing taxes on the rich is such a bad idea.

People used to do a lot of funny stuff in the past. Does not mean it was ever right to do so.

>>12654

There is nothing sacred about private property. Private property rights are an excuse to justify ill-gotten gains and inheritance from their rich parents. In order to make money, you need to have money to invest. The whole point of wage slavery is to ensure that you have enough money to get by but never enough money to be able to obtain the means of production for yourself and run your own business. The barriers to entry for small businesses are notoriously high. Small businesses fail more often than not as well. So most people have no choice but to continue renting out their labour to the bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie continue to make money hand over fist and the gap between the bourgeoisie and proletariat continues to grow.

The 90% top marginal income tax rate was in place in the United States during a time where the American Middle-Class was stronger than ever. When Ronald Reagan took power and cut the top marginal income tax rate to 28%, that changed everything. The Democrats only managed to bump it up to 39.6%. With long-term capital gains taxed at only half that rate.

This whole property rights thing is the same as telling an African-American free man in 1865 that he is now free but he must start from 0 while everyone else has had a massive head start….

>>12674

>There is nothing sacred about private property.

It is fundamentally unjust to take the fruits of ones labor away without compensation. If you value justice, you should value property rights.

>Private property rights are an excuse to justify ill-gotten gains

Actually, no. Strong property rights are what prevents ill-gotten gains.

>and inheritance from their rich parents.

The alternative to letting children inherit from their parents is to make the state the sole heir, and how exactly is that fair? You still let people profit from a fortune they didn't invest a cent or a second of their time in, on top of essentially disowning the parents.

>In order to make money, you need to have money to invest.

Skills can take you a long way, too. Inheriting money makes things easier, but so do good genetics, and I don't see anyone seriously attempt to level that playing field.

>The whole point of wage slavery is to ensure that you have enough money to get by but never enough money to be able to obtain the means of production for yourself and run your own business. The barriers to entry for small businesses are notoriously high. Small businesses fail more often than not as well.

Of course the entry barriers are high when the state harasses small businesses non-stop.

>So most people have no choice but to continue renting out their labour to the bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie continue to make money hand over fist and the gap between the bourgeoisie and proletariat continues to grow.

This isn't a one-sided deal. The "proletariat" (we're not living in the 19th century anymore) takes no risks in this deal, and then there's this little thing called time preference.

>>12675

Only if you let everyone keep his ill-gained property. Take away the property of the rich people who profitted from eminent domain, for example, and you're one step closer to levelling the playing field.

>>12686

The bourgeoisie profited off the backs of the labour of others. That's what capitalism is all about. Extracting surplus value (profit) from the people you hire to labour for you.

There were plenty of people in the past (African-Americans, women, etc.) who were prevented from owning property. And now that they finally have the right to own property, you're gonna be like "you have to start from 0 while white men have a head start." Right-libertarianism is basically about historical privilege.

I fail to see how allowing a spoiled Rich Kid of Instagram inherit millions and billions when he didn't do anything but be lucky to be born into wealth is any more fair than redistributing that inheritance with the rest of society and create a level playing field. This accumulation of capital in the hands of the few is what creates barriers to entry for small entrepreneurs. The little guy isn't given the means to accumulate the capital they need to start a business because it's hoarded by Trust Fund Kids.

You're never going to be able to generate much capital from wage labour. Wage labour is a loser's game. Entrepreneurship is the way to go but you need the capital to play the game in the first place. Genetics also play a part but more so with downward mobility rather than upward mobility. If you are genetically inferior and your parents were working-class, you're fucked. What do you say to that? Let autistic people rot? But if you are genetically inferior and you are a trust fund kid, you might be ok if you don't squander your wealth or have a caretaker to manage your money. But not every autist can be a trust fund kid libertarian who shitposts on imageboards. But pretty much every libertarian is a trust fund autistic liberal.

The state does not harass small business non-stop. Good God no. What you mean like safety regulations and that sort of thing? Oh we can't have that. Small businesses have lower tax rates than medium/large corporations do in many countries. And they get lots of subsidies and such. The government does a lot to help small businesses. But they can't compete with the behemoth medium/large corporations. That's just the nature of capitalism. Medium/Large corporations benefit from economies of scale. That's capitalism. Capital accumulates into fewer and fewer hands until the barriers to entry get so high.

And the bourgeoisie take risks? lol. Ever heard of "too big to fail"? Quantitative Easing? Bailouts for banks, Wall Street, etc. Ring a bell? It's the little guy that takes a bath when things go south financially. The "too big to fail" bourgeoisie get bailouts.

>>12698

The workers' councils profited off the backs of the labour of others. That's what socialism is all about. Extracting surplus production (labour-valued commodities and services) from the efficient workers and distributing them to the less efficient workers.

>>12698

>people profit from their investments

ok?

>government intervention in who can own property

thats bad

>muh privilege

0/10

>muh inheritance laws

if the kids dumb, he'll spend his money frivolously on a whole bunch of consumer goods a good thing for everyone else, if he's smart or has good advice he'll make good investments with it and grow the economy great for him, better for everyone else

>wage labor is a loser's game

if you think that, then go innawoods, we won't miss you.

>let autistic people rot

let autistic do what they can, the company I work for has a fullblown retard working in the packing department, he sits all day, every day, wrapping small pieces of glass in tissue, placing them in trays and then putting them into boxes. He can do the work, he gets paid.

>the state doesn't harass small business

the same level of regulation, applied to a large and small company, will disproportionately effect the smaller company. the less legal trouble you cause both, the better the small can do.

>government intervention in the financial system

still bad

you seem to have us confused with economic conservatives

>>12698

>There were plenty of people in the past (African-Americans, women, etc.) who were prevented from owning property. And now that they finally have the right to own property, you're gonna be like "you have to start from 0 while white men have a head start." Right-libertarianism is basically about historical privilege.

Seriously? Privilege? Right now, african-americans have plenty of privileges to make up for the past discrimination. The evil white men is paying for their affirmative action. They are not starting from zero, and the cisgendered shitlords don't all start having all their property intact, as they are paying way more taxes than the blacks. It's similar with women, except women are on even more equal-ground with men, and in a free market, I'm sure they would bridge the rest of the distance pretty quickly, if they wanted to.

>I fail to see how allowing a spoiled Rich Kid of Instagram inherit millions and billions when he didn't do anything but be lucky to be born into wealth is any more fair than redistributing that inheritance with the rest of society and create a level playing field.

It's not about the rights of the spoiled brats. I fucking hate these kids. It's about the rights of their parents who actually worked for the money. If they want to burn their money, who am I to say otherwise?

>create a level playing field.

You will never create a level playing field as long as some people are born more intelligent, strong, good looking or socially capable than others. You don't need a level playing field, either. Some people will have to work harder than others to get to the same position, but fuck me, do we really have to take every burden from our fellow human beings?

>And the bourgeoisie take risks? lol. Ever heard of "too big to fail"? Quantitative Easing? Bailouts for banks, Wall Street, etc. Ring a bell? It's the little guy that takes a bath when things go south financially. The "too big to fail" bourgeoisie get bailouts.

Which part of "anarchocapitalist" do you not understand? Even the minarchists here are strictly against bailouts and subsidies. Socialists presuppose that everyone understands your terminology, yet you're apparently too lazy or too ignorant to check up even the most basic policies of your opponents.

The bariers between the poverty line and living comfortably are literally a function of hours worked.

There have been very, very few successful people (outside of inheritance, which is just a form of incentives for parents to work hard for their children's futures) who put in less than 60-80 hour work weeks (sometimes not even getting paid for said work weeks because it was personal work). Success is a function of how much time and effort you're willing to put into it. The modern notion of wage slavery is created by individuals too lazy to put in the same amount of effort as the successful while simultaneously thinking we're setting up a rigged system because success has somehow become "easier."

If anything, they should be thankful for what has been provided via capitalism. Their lazy ass would have starved in the streets two hundred, hell even a hundred years ago. Then again, nothing creates innovation like a man up against the wall.

So it's perfectly cool for idle rich kids to inherit millions and billions that he didn't work for? But it's not ok for the government to take $1 billion of inheritance money and give 1 million people a basic income for a month? ($1000). Because the idle poor be lazy and didn't work for it? What about the idle rich? You guys are a bunch of trust fund kids who are trying to justify your inherited privilege.

When I see a Rich Kid of Instagram ring up a $40,000 USD tab at a night club for one night, that enrages the shit out of me. How could you justify that sort of thing to yourself? You could give a basic income of $1000/month to 40 adults for a month on that $40k tab. These stupid fucking rich kids inherit privilege. They didn't work for shit.

I'm not saying that everyone should have equal income or wealth. But holy fuck, poverty should not exist when you have fucking trust fund kiddies like Dan Bilzerian spending millions on superfluous bullshit. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't have an apartment, food, clothing, public health insurance, household appliances/items, personal care items/toiletries, phone/internet, etc.

And don't give me started on the bourgeoisie deserve all the profits they get because of "investments". Investments allow you to sit on your ass and do nothing while everyone else does the work for you. And considering how much money the government creates out of thin air with Quantitative Easing and bailouts, ownership of capital is really just a matter of inherited privilege. Money is not even fucking real ffs. It's fiat. Those of us who were born to working-class families and have no chance of acquiring the capital necessary to be entrepreneurs have little to no chance of achieving the American Dream.

If my daddy gave me $2 million, I could legit put all of that money in the stock market and live off the capital gains for the rest of my life and just be a lazy ass all my life.

But if your daddy was working-class and you don't have that privilege and you don't work, you're a lazy bum?

Why do the idle rich get a pass but the idle poor do not?

Don't you fucking autistic liberals understand how retarded the "investment" argument is? You could legit put money in the stock market and live off the capital gains without doing shit. Just checking your forex once in awhile on a stock market app on your phone and buy/sell with a tap of a touchscreen. Minimal effort. Any trust fund kid retard can invest in Index Funds and get a guaranteed return.

>>12745

You're appealing to emotions and not ethics.

When a father gives his son $1m, that is a consensual arrangement.

When someone takes a high-paying job, that is a consensual arrangement.

When a worker takes a job at whatever pay, that is, ultimately, a consensual arrangement. The worker might be 'forced to' because he needs to feed his family, but ultimately no-one is limiting his choices except himself.

Tax, on the other hand, is the forcible extortion of citizens. It boils down to 'gibsmedat or you get to spend years in a cell with Jamal'. It is rarely consensual, even if it is ultimately beneficial.

Ethically, you are unjustified.

>>12745

>Because the idle poor be lazy and didn't work for it? What about the idle rich?

I explained this to you: The rich parents earned the money. The money is their property. They can do with the property as they see fit. Hence, they can bequeath it to their children. This is a simple argument. You could've attacked any chain of the argument. Instead, you simply ignored it. This is not about the rights of the kids, it's about the rights of their parents.

>You guys are a bunch of trust fund kids who are trying to justify your inherited privilege.

My parents are highly in debt, and I'd be surprised if I inherited even a single cent.

>>12746

>When I see a Rich Kid of Instagram ring up a $40,000 USD tab at a night club for one night, that enrages the shit out of me. How could you justify that sort of thing to yourself? You could give a basic income of $1000/month to 40 adults for a month on that $40k tab. These stupid fucking rich kids inherit privilege. They didn't work for shit.

Neither did the people you want to give a basic income to.

>There's no reason why everyone shouldn't have an apartment, food, clothing, public health insurance, household appliances/items, personal care items/toiletries, phone/internet, etc.

Of course there is a reason: Someone has to pay for it, and someone has to work for it. I don't regard it as ethical to force someone to work so that somebody else, who might be a complete and utter cunt for all we know,.

>>12758

Libertarians = autistic liberals who think that the individual matters above all. And doesn't recognize that we live in a society and that our actions can either have a positive (ie. give to charity, give people well-paying jobs with shortened, flexible work weeks) or negative impact (give in to greed and avarice) on other people.

>>12759

There is a big fucking difference between living on a basic income (~$1000/month) and living on the millions and billions that you inherited from your father…

You really think that a trust fund kid's "right" to INHERITED affluence succeeds the poor's right to basic liberty, standard of living and dignity?

You really think that porky's "right" to SURPLUS VALUE OF LABOUR (Profit) OFF THE BACKS OF HIS WORKERS because he just so happened to be lucky enough to inherit capital from his father succeeds the right for everyone to have a home and not go hungry?

Libertarians = autistic liberals who think that the individual is king and society can go get fucked. I rest my case

Bill Maher (liberal) - "libertarians are selfish pricks" video

>>12745

Because there's very few people with that much money believe it or not. I happened to live in the upper middle class before my dad left me when I was in middle school, driving our family below the poverty line. Hard work has let me see the joys of Capitalism as I'm getting my trade skill apprenticeship wrapped up right now, whereas you damn hippies want me to shut the fuck up, take some humanities courses, and accept someone else's money as well as the state.

I refuse to accept cash I didn't either earn or inherit, and I sure as hell wouldn't be working as hard as I am if it wasn't for me planning to invest in my children's future via inheritance when I die. Plus if there were inheritance laws, I'd just "gift" my savings to them before I died, or liquidate my assets into gold/silver/property and trade it to them under the table.

Lefties like you like to insist we're all trust fund kiddies when the truth is most of us grew up well below the poverty line and worked for what we have.

>>12763

Believe it or not, unless the kid only owns stock in the company, he still has to work to maintain that wealth.

The kid who wastes $40,000 a night at the nightclub is both investing in the economy and ruining his children's futures by wasting away his fortunes.

>>12762

>Libertarians can't even into society!

Individualists don't deny that individuals live in society, and you did a piss-poor job demonstrating otherwise.

>And doesn't recognize that we live in a society and that our actions can either have a positive (ie. give to charity, give people well-paying jobs with shortened, flexible work weeks) or negative impact (give in to greed and avarice) on other people.

Again, you seem to be appealing solely to emotions.

>>12763

>You really think that a trust fund kid's "right"

>trust fund kid's "right"

Okay, now I'm done. I tried to be somewhat nice. I really did. Remember when I wrote this:

>This is not about the rights of the kids, it's about the rights of their parents.

Or this?

>It's not about the rights of the spoiled brats.

>It's about the rights of their parents

I said it twice. Almost the exact same wording, in fact. Now, you tell me, how exactly was that ambiguous? It fucking wasn't. You conventiently ignored it TWICE. How fucking retarded do you have to be to reply to this

>It's not about the rights of the spoiled brats.

with this?

>You really think that a trust fund kid's "right"

Fuck. You!

>>12764

This was a waste of my time.

>>12766

And I should state that for every "trust fund kiddy" there's three more investing in the economy, and five more donating. America and its "evil dirty capitalism" actually contributes more voluntarily (without taxation) to charities and third world projects than the next seven (or was it thirteen?) countries combined do in taxed charity. Suck it.

>>12769

>inb4 they don't

Per percentage of population we rank 13th. Per capita amounts and via volunteering we're much, much higher than other countries.

>>12769

I have already went over what 'investing" in the economy entails. Fronting capital (that you inherited from your ancestors) to laborers who work for you while you earn off their backs. This is "rentier" income.

The state is very well capable of supplying capital for enterprise (state-owned enterprise). They are the ones who create the damn currency. "Investors" are impotent without their capital. They need labourers more than labourers need them. The state can provide labourers with the capital they need.

>>12770

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country

Funny how the Chinese are among the least charitable people on earth, unlike the Burmese.

>>12765

So you're proud of being a wage cuck while porky and his idle rich kids have all the power and wealth. And you reproduced, dooming your children to a wage cuck existence like yourself. Why reproduce when there's 7 billion+ in the world. Plenty of people in the third world who would love to live in a first world country.

>>12773

The Chinese are not really a "people's republic" though. lol. They have child labour! Little Chinese kids working long hours making peanuts. The Chinese government and entrepreneurs are scum of the earth. North Korea's Supreme Leader included.

>>12769

You do know that you get a tax credit for charitable contributions right? And not all charity is the same btw. A lot of charities are very wasteful. They don't actually lead to money and resources in the hands of poor people.

Meanwhile something like a basic income would require very little government administrative overhead. I have worked with payroll software before. Creating batch files depositing funds into thousands of accounts at once. Sending every adult a deposit (or cheque) of $1000/month and a smaller amount for each child (like say $400) would be very easy. Far less administration required than the current means-tested welfare system we have in place where most of the money just ends up in the hands of over-paid government bureaucrats.

My sister works for an NGO and she makes six figures. Jesus Christ. You think these people are any better at managing your money than the government?

Hell most of the jobs out there are pretty much useless. It amazes me that a corporation is willing to pay my sister a $8333+/month salary to manage a team of marketers. Yet someone like me who spreads red pill truths on image boards and is working on a Bukowski-inspired novel (about the anti-wage slavery, pro-leisure, pro-freeter ethic) probably won't generate much money from the truth bombs I drop. Because people would rather waste their money on shit like 50 Shades of Grey and Eat, Love, Pray. Oh yes, Ayn Rand, money is virtue right? That dumb bitch. The nature of what is considered "valuable" in capitalism is fucking absurd. The nature of paid employment is absurd.

>>12762

>Libertarians = autistic liberals who think that the individual matters above all.

Individuals or rather the self does matter above all else, the only reason society exists is because it provides a better existence for the individuals than living innawoods. I'm sorry but inconveniencing yourself for others is the epitome of cuckoldry.

>>12778

So how exactly would democratic socialism stop people from liking stupid shit? You gonna stop people from making those books?

And why do you feel entitled to money for writing stuff? Hell, maybe your stuff is great, but nobody owes you money.

>>12774

But wagecuckery is better than being a sacrificial cuck to others. Both are shit though, but what you advocate is more cucked.

>>12782

In my hypothetical democratic socialist world, the book publisher of 50 Shades of Grey would end up paying more taxes. Since I'd scrap corporate subsidies, scrap corporate tax credits, scrap a whole bunch of tax credits that tend to benefit the well-off in society. Raise marginal income tax rates (all income below the poverty line would be taxed at 0%. Social security and health care premiums also taxed at 0% below poverty line). Raise the cap on social security and health care premium contributions. I'd tax capital gains the same that I would tax employment income. I don't see the point of taxing long-term capital gains at half the rate. Demand is what drives economic growth, not supply.

And then I'd pay out a basic income. So the cesspool lowest common denominator authors who make millions (50 Shades of Grey) would subsidize the starving authors (like me) in my hypothetical social democratic world. And with more money in the pockets of earners on the lower-end of the spectrum, people would have more money to support indie authors, artists, software developers, etc. The quality of literature, art, software, etc. would go up because people would be motivated by a higher purpose. The chase of profits perverts the artistic process. Capitalism ruins video games, art, just about everything.

Erm I should say *social democratic world. There is a difference. There is a difference. Even though you libertarians and Republicans can't tell the difference. Nor can Bernie Sanders.

Democratic socialism = state or worker control of the means of production + democracy

Social democracy = private control of the means of production with some state/worker control (ie. key nationalized industries) and a comprehensive welfare state.

The possibility of socialism (whether democratic or revolutionary) is so far removed from 2015 that I can't even imagine it. Though it could be possible eventually. Capitalism is going to collapse eventually (falling rate of profit). But I'm not an accelerationist. I'm a social democrat reformer. Democratic socialism is not something that I would even entertain until capitalism is on it's last legs. It can not happen until capitalism is dying.

>>12803

Social democracy is garbage. It's what happens when corporations are so entrenched in the government the only way to give people the impression that have some semblance of control over it is to give them the illusion of socialism with some welfare state policies. Meanwhile corporations run the show.

It doesn't get more wagecucked than social democracy.

>>12805

Corporations run the whole freakin show to begin with as it is right now. Especially after the Citizens United decision by the Republican-dominated Supreme Court. Social democracy would soften the blow. Accelerationism would be pretty chaotic. The people in the developed world (not to sound like that mautist Jason Unruhe) don't want to do revolution. The people in the developed world do not want to grab an AK-47 and kill some rich people. They want social democratic concessions. They want someone like Bernie Sanders.

Though even Bernie Sanders' ideas are out of date. I don't see how a $15/hr minimum wage benefits disillusioned workers. Especially young pissed off millennials. Unemployment will likely go up with a $15 minimum. And unemployment is already too high if you count people who already gave up searching for work or who work part-time but want to work full-time and can't get full-time hours. Basic income makes a lot more sense. Social democratic parties need to start acting like it's 2015+. And not look to the past for answers. Like the 1950s-1970s like Bernie Sanders likes to do.

>>12799

>And then I'd pay out a basic income. So the cesspool lowest common denominator authors who make millions (50 Shades of Grey) would subsidize the starving authors (like me) in my hypothetical social democratic world.

You really did drop a truth bomb here, I didn't know socialists were entitled shits. Why didn't you guys tell me this before?

>>12799

>So the cesspool lowest common denominator authors who make millions (50 Shades of Grey) would subsidize the starving authors (like me) in my hypothetical social democratic world. And with more money in the pockets of earners on the lower-end of the spectrum, people would have more money to support indie authors, artists, software developers, etc. The quality of literature, art, software, etc. would go up because people would be motivated by a higher purpose. The chase of profits perverts the artistic process. Capitalism ruins video games, art, just about everything.

But something being out of the mainstream doesn't make it good. Look at video games, where both AAA and indie produces roughly the same ratio of garbage and good stuff (which is to say they're both mostly shit). You might be helping out great artists who may not be successful, but you're also financing the shit ones too. And if Sturgeon's Law is anything to go buy, you'll be funding 10% good art and 90% shit art at best.

There's also your initial claim that money is the sole motivator for artists, which is not true. Yes, it is a motivator, but there are many passion projects out there which have been very successful. Hell, just look at Linux, all the artists on bandcamp, and board projects/OC.

And even if you were to ignore all this there's still no real guarantee that people will be interested in all this new stuff that could come about. Normalfags will stick to mainstream stuff. As for the rest of use, sure a few new things would be cool but you'd have an even bigger ocean of shit to swim through. Not to mention that I imagine there'll be plenty of talentless dickwipes who will look at this plan and go "I can get gubmint funbux for writing shit regardless of quality? AWESOME, FUCK HAVING AN ACTUAL JOB THAT'S USEFUL TO SOCIETY."

>inb4 but the gubmint would only finance the good stuff

Who determines what the good stuff is? You? What if the council/board/whatever that's chosen decides your work isn't worth financing?

>>12807

Social democracy lulls and sedates the masses instead of them waking up to the animal farm they're put in. It's corporatism in disguise. And all they want is to be further sedated, pretty sad. I respect picking up AKs more than this, though I consider it unnecessary and abhorrent. Really all that's necessary is an invalidation of the wealth of the 1%, if we all realize money is paper and treat it as such the whole house of cards falls apart. Which will allow us to build a house of solid foundation.

I'm writing on a book right now. I'd still be doing it if I didn't get a single cent from it. Fuck you, demsoc.

>>12814

What's yer book, m8?

>>12811

I'm entitled yet idle rich people who feel they have the right to inherit MILLIONS and BILLIONS from their parents are not? Even though that fiat currency was initially created out of thin air by the government and their father made that money off the backs of other labourers…

>>12813

Muh gold standard

>>12816

>I'm entitled yet idle rich people who feel they have the right to inherit MILLIONS and BILLIONS from their parents are not?

No, you're both entitled.

>>12816

>Muh gold standard

Spoken like a true corporate shill. I'm not an ancap even. But whatever helps ease your corporate Stockholm syndrome.

>>12812

Well think of it as an investment like publishing. Publishers take risks on the material they fund. If the work they fund is not successful, they take a bath. If the work they fund is successful, they make a profit. If it's very successful, they make a huge profit. And that profit subsidizes the work that wasn't successful. I think it's worthwhile for society to have that 10% of quality indie art and 90% of crap art. Than to not have that 10% of quality indie art in the first place.

Like I know what I am. I'm a creative type. I don't like working the office cuck jobs that I've worked over the years. Or these retail cuck job I had. And I don't want to work an IT cuck job for some bourgeoisie firm. I don't want to be a journo cuck for some bourgeoisie journalist firm. I want to be a full-time creative like my idol Charles Bukowski. Fuck all of these shit jobs. There are plenty of people throughout history who were creatives, philosophers, intellectuals, etc. Society doesn't appreciate that shit anymore.

It's 2015. With all the productivity gains we have made since the 1970s, there's no reason for people to have to work bullshit jobs for half their waking life anymore. Society worships GDP growth and the almighty dollar above all. Is it worth? Is that what life is about?

6:30 AM, the alarm clock rings. Cuck, cuck, cuck. Better hurry up to get ready for work wage slave. Cuck, cuck, cuck. Fight rush hour traffic to get to your job. Cuck, cuck, cuck. Take abuse from narcissistic customers. Cuck, cuck, cuck. Listen to your boss talk about how you need to find efficiencies. Cuck, cuck, cuck. You just made a whole bunch of money for your employer and are told to be grateful to the opportunity to do so. Cuck, cuck, cuck. Now go fight rush hour traffic back home wage slave and go zone out in front of the TV because you a too exhausted to do anything else, Cuck, cuck, cuck.

>>12814

I'm writing my book regardless what I get paid. And I have dropped a lot of truth bombs about the abhorrent nature of capitalism for free on the internet. Your welcome. But if you're gonna give fucking MILLIONS to that hag who wrote 50 Shades of Grey and maybe even BILLIONS to her publisher, it would be nice if indie creative/philosopher/intellectual types got a modest amount at least.

>>12820

>dropped a lot of truth bombs about the abhorrent nature of capitalism for free on the internet

>shills for corporate lulling of masses for welfare pampering

k, whatever you say welfarecuck.

>>12821

Better than being a libertariancuck "everything will be just fine if the government GETS OUT OF MUH WAY! MUH LIBER-TEA!" As if government control of the economy is the source of all economic ills in the world. And everything would be just fine if corporate vultures would be free to do whatever the fuck they want to do.

>>12822

>corporate vultures free to do whatever the fuck they want to do

That's exactly what happens under social democracy where the corporations run the government for the small fee of lulling you welfarecucks to sleep with a welfare check that they get the wagecucks to pay.

>>12823

Like I said, accelerationism sucks. My girlfriend's bestie's boyfriend just killed himself. He was around my age. Early 30s. I hate seeing the suffering man. This is what happens when people are subjected to neo-liberal capitalism. Neo-liberal capitalism causes ills like depression and suicide. Look at France. The social democracy stuff was placating the populace. Then the "Socialist" Party did the whole Third-Way social democracy thing (neo-liberal reform). The North African Muslims (who slant on the poor side economically and many are unemployed) got angry when their benefits got cut or scaled back. The result? JIHAD! JIHAD!

It's politically incorrect for me to even say that as a leftist. But France was a fucking ticking time bomb waiting to set off. Social democracy was like a safety value so to speak over there. Now people are afraid of getting killed and shit. Scary times over there. This kinda shit is gonna spill over in North America too. The thing is that it's only the Jihadists and far-right who do crazy shit. The far-left hasn't become radicalized yet. But it will happen if we keep going down the accelerationist neo-liberal path. In fact many North American young men have converted to Islam to join ISIS because they're so fucking pissed off. In fact it's been said that 30% of the Jihadists in France are actually converts. White French guys are like "fuck this? No welfare? I'm converting to Islam. JIHAD! JIHAD!"

Inb4 some Tumblr SJW says that I'm being racist by making light of the whole Islamic radicalism thing. But it's fucking true. Disenfranchisement is leading to this Jihad stuff.

>>12825

Lets compare Buddhism to Islam while I'm at it.

Buddhism:

>"I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing."

>"All are afraid of the stick, all hold their lives dear. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others"

>"'As I am, so are these. As are these, so am I.' Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill."

>"Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat."

Islam:

> Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

> Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

> Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Yup Muslims are mostly violent because their religion is violent. Their religion is expansionist by nature with an end goal of a global caliphate.

>>12826

>>12776

You do know that rich people are selective about which charities they donate to, and it's the middle class that invests in shitty charities, right?

>>12778

Democratic Socialism is only democratic when they're not in power but part of the plurality.

The moment they either become the minority voice or the majority, it just becomes socialism.

>>12822

I made a thread on leftpol about the independent institute. Since you like free things, please do an internship with them for a week of free education and room/board.

>>12825

Islam is a pretty whacky religion. Though there is also all sorts of crazy shit in the bible too. I watched a documentary last night "Caucus" which focused on the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. And the social conservativism on display made me want to throw up. Libertarians are basically Republicans who are embarrassed by social conservatives. And it's so obvious that Republican politicians often don't even buy into the social conservative bullshit. They are just playing to their base. I mean look at Michelle Bachmann. I bet she's probably like an insatiable hotwife swinger or something in her private life. She looks a lot like the MILFs you see in porn. She's probably not a legit Christian conservative.

The United States has the unique distinction of being the only rich country where religiosity is at such a high level. For pretty much every other country, as societies become more economically prosperous, religiosity decreases.

Canada's Conservatives are pretty bad too. But a lot of Conservatives here are really just liberals who want to pay less taxes. Lots of social conservative reactionaries here though.

>>12831

Islam developed from Christianity and Judaism, but you know that. Anything that requires faith over reason is bound to be whack in one way or another hence why all religions should be trashed as far as I'm concerned.

I kind of wanted to make a more in-depth post describing why property rights are fundamental to both the success of individuals and in allowing people to have increasing fluidity in what they can do.

But then I remembered that I have to get up in five hours/was busy responding to the atheists, and I lost track of time.

I'll try to make a more in-depth post when I get home from school and the gym tomorrow (gotta do that cardio so I don't become a fat fuck/stretch out my legs 'cause of deadlifts/squats today), but the main point is that if you don't have clearly defined property rights, people lack an incentive to innovate, causing society to stagnate or even reverse its current course of action. These "rich bastards" that you hate will only put up with so much before running off and leaving you with nothing if you hate on them too much (capital flight, or if you believe in human capital, look at French and German doctors/scientists who are increasingly coming to the USA after graduating to do research, perform their trade, etc.: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalflight.asp).

Can I also just say that I find it extremely ironic that the person complaining about Libertarians not being generous/having compassion wants to live off of other's work?

>>12863

>spoiler

Hell, Sanders supporters are constantly talking about how he's somehow going to "end greed" by stealing from people who didn't vote for him to give free stuff to people who did, so evidently that very same irony is lost on quite a few people.

>>12886

I'd never defend Sanders, but at least his logic is consistent with the idea of "tax for reparations" at the very minimum (even though you could only justify that for maybe a decade at most before laziness couldn't be blamed on past injustices).

>>12815

A mix of libertarianism, transhumanism, military sci-fi and spy/crime thriller. Also feels, because every good book needs feels.

>>11473

>hopefully I've won the lottery and I'm doing a bit better for meself

>winning the lottery

>you doing anything

lmao typical inept failure in a capitalist society

>>12918

So Deus Ex: The Novel? Sounds cool.

>>12981

Deus Ex is one of my main influences, as far as the sci-fi part goes. Others would be Eclipse Phase and Peter Watts, even though these are pretty bleeding-heart liberal.

Here is my version of an ancap society:

I live in the woods (I own or co-own my shack and tools so it is still capitalism), I exchange furs and meat for the commodities I enjoy, and I exploit myself every night :3

>>13089

>I own or co-own my shack and tools

That does not make it capitalism.

>>13127

It does. His tools are means of production.

>>12762

Ah yes, giving to charity is such a good act that every citizen should be forced against their will to donate to people they do not choose on pain of imprisonment.

Go fuck yourself.

>>13135

Oh you don't have to imprison. If you refuse to pay your taxes to the government, they can just get your employer to garnish your wages. The government also has the authorization to spy on your bank accounts (they do this for welfare recipients to tell if you are lying about your income). And they can take money out of your bank account if they wish. It's not really your money. American dollars are property of the US Federal Reserve. Canadian dollars are property of the Bank of Canada, etc. You are mistaken if you think your dollars are really yours. That's not how fiat currency works.

If people had any idea of where money actually comes up, there would be fucking riots in the streets.

>>13178

>Oh you don't have to imprison. If you refuse to pay your taxes to the government, they can just get your employer to garnish your wages.

What if he refuses? Then the government will have to sanction him, and that will most likely be through violent means.

>The government also has the authorization to spy on your bank accounts

Which is a dick move.

>(they do this for welfare recipients to tell if you are lying about your income).

So? I'm not exactly cheering on the government because it made a half-hearted attempt at damage control.

>And they can take money out of your bank account if they wish. It's not really your money. American dollars are property of the US Federal Reserve.

You fucking idiot. The US Federal Reserve holds no legitimate property over your money according to the anarchocapitalist theory of property, plus it enforces a monopoly on currencies. Even if it did hold property over your money, you wouldn't have a contract with the US Federal Reserve allowing them to take their money back from you, but you do have a contract with your bank to pay out the money you paid in. If they broke their part of the contract - by refusing to pay out your money - you'd have a compensation claim against them.