/liberty/ - Liberty

>People respond to incentives

HOLY FUCK? PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING TO MARKET INCENTIVES? THIS IS PURE EVIL? YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT PEOPLE ARE USING SCARCE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES ON SUBJECTS THAT ARE MOST HELPFUL TO OTHER PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE WILL BE REWARDED IN A MARKET SYSTEM

You and your little socialist shitbird professor are total fucking retards.

The fact that people are pushed in certain directions by the market IS ONE OF THE BEST FUCKING FEATURES OF THE MARKET.

The fact that I am pushed by the market to make my boat out of wood instead of aluminum IS A GOOD THING, because other people want the aluminum more and have more important uses for it.

The fact that I am pushed away from FUCKING FRENCH RENAISSANCE POETRY is a good thing, BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS ME TO STUDY FUCKING FRENCH RENAISSANCE POETRY. IF YOU THINK IT'S BAD THE MARKET DOESN'T PUSH YOU TO BECOME A FUCKING ARTIST OR A MUSICIAN YOU'RE LITERALLY SAYING "FUCK EVERYONE ELSE'S OPINIONS ON WHAT I SHOULD DO, EVERYONE SHOULD WANT TO PAY ME FOR WHATEVER I WANT TO DO."

>>12241

Post the one where he talks about how all the capitalists were shocked that by becoming self employed they were proving Marx right.

The fact that the most important jobs are also the most highly paid is a feature of a free market, not a bug. Also

>bait text

>video with no explanation

>no argument put forward

Take note, this is sage-worthy posting.

>>12243

>Dressing like shit and getting high is more productive

Or maybe the reduced productivity in larger companies is due to the diseconomy of scale YOU RETARD

Maybe if this was a better system it would have already become predominant

Seriously you'd expect at least one top 500 business with this strategy if it was so brilliant

>>12245

>>12243

>it's a non-capitalist enterprise

top fucking kek the autism is unreal

>>12246

Except that it isn't capitalistic. Its worker owned and there isn't a capitalist at the top extracting surplus labor from his workforce. They are operating a mutualist enterprise.

>>12245

Because 8 dudes in their basement can totally generate the raw capital necessary to compete with fucking General Electric.

>>12231

I find it hilarious that libertarians will defend being forced to chose a career based off of what the market dictates and actually extol that as a benefit to their system but when say, a planned economy demands the same thing of workers they will jump up and down and shreik at the top of their lungs that "the gubbment stealin muh freedums!"

>>12251

>Because fuck your dreams. You should only be able to feed your family if you do what is in demand

IF NO ONE IS WILLING TO PAY YOU FOR WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, THEN YES, GO FUCK YOURSELF. YOU ARE LITERALLY SAYING THAT YOUR DREAM THAT LITERALLY NO ONE IS WILLING TO PAY YOU TO PURSUE IS SO IMPORTANT EVERYONE SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PAY YOU ANYONE YOU GREEDY EGOCENTRIC FUCKING CUNT

>>12256

see>>12255

The value of what you do has literally nothing to do weather or not it makes you money.

>>12254

>a planned economy demands the same thing of workers they will jump up and down

The market only pushes people out of fields that are in low-demand.

Sure, you can try to be a musician, but you'll only succeed if you're good.

Sure, you can try to be an artist, but you'll only eventually succeed if you're very talented.

This pushes all the half-assed loser artists in musicians INTO FIELDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL INTO MANKIND INSTEAD OF FORCING EVERYONE TO PAY FOR THEIR SHITTY FUCKING ART

>>12257

FUCK

>>12256

see

>>12255

>>12257

>The value of what you do has literally nothing to do weather or not it makes you money.

Whether*

But anyways, the money you earn is an objective representation of everyone's subjective valuation of your efforts

IF YOU'RE NOT MAKING MONEY AS AN ARTIST

IT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK

YOU FUCKING SUCK

>>12258

>FIELDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL INTO MANKIND

Are you implying that if something is in demand it is good?

Because I could totally make a shit tone of money selling crack right now because it has a LOT of demand in my neighborhood.

Also, again, see

>>12255

>>12261

>Are you implying that if something is in demand it is good?

If no one is paying you for your art or your music it's because

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK

and they shouldn't be forced to support YOUR SHITTY HOBBY

>THE MARKET IS EVIL BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T PAY ME TO PRODUCE SHITTY PRODUCTS LIKE MY NEW DUBSTEP ALBUM :(

The market isn't evil you're just an entitled faggot

I WANT TO JERK OFF FOR A LIVING WHY ISN'T ANYONE PAYING ME FOR IT

HOLY FUCK CAPITALISM IS SO EVIL WHY ISN'T ANYONE PAYING ME TO PISS IN BOTTLES AND EAT CHICKEN TENDIES THIS IS FUCKING EGPLOITATION GIVEM E MEMES OF PREODUXCUYION

>>12261

HEY YOU FUCKING BOURGEOISE I WANT TO SLEEP IN MY BED AND PLAY VIDEO GAMES FOR A LIVING THAT IS MY DREAM WHY AREN'T YOU PAYING ME FOR IT WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU YYOU UFCJKKING EXPLOITER

THE AUTISM IN THIS THREAD

answer this riddle, capitalists: >>11473

>>12267

it would be different because it would be easier for anyone to start a business and not have retarded standards for behavior in interviews

>>12268

It's pretty great art, tbh (to be honest).

>>12268

>Because "muh free market" sure seemed to think screaming at a computer like a child was worth more than any other profession I can think of.

Because there's lots of stupid children in the world and you're not providing them any entertainment and pewdiepie is

>>12264

We produce more than enough to provide a decent living standard to every human.

>>12272

YES WE MOST ALL BE BROUGHT DOWN TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, WE MUST NOT REWARD HARD WORK OR INTELLIGENCE BECAUSE THEN US LEFTISTS MIGHT ACTUALLY LOSE OUT ON ACCOUNT OF OUR INEPTITUDE

I CAN'T WAIT TO LIVE IN AN EQUAL SOCIETY WHERE I GET PAID THE SAME AS A SURGEON WHEN I SMOKE WEED AND PLAY VIDEO GAMES :ddd YAY `~~EQUALITY

>>12267

>muh wage slavery with rainbows

>>12274

>>12269

>>12273

Red text and all caps do not make you look smart or sound scary.

>>12273

If you are free to pursuit any work you like, work becomes it's own reward.

>>12262

Ok. Im going to go sell smack now. Because its in demand. Gotta love the free market.

>>12276

>>12276

Well clearly logic doesn't work with you retards so I might as well just use emotionally manipulative bullshit.

Leftists are just intellectualizing their inferiority. They are inferior, they don't like free and fair competition, so they have to intellectualize free and fair competition as unfair and slavery. That's how fucking pathetic they are.

It's like how Christians had a slave morality, because their sense of morality developed when they were slaves. Leftists have an inept morality, all success is exploitation.

see

>>12230

>>12230

LEFTISTS ARE RATIONALIZING THEIR GROSS INEPTITUDE AS HUMAN BEINGS

>>12278

>implying anything is inherently morally wrong with drugs

More evidence of the gross fucking stupidity of your average leftist.

>>12263

I love how the neo-feudalists who has delusions of grandeur of running his own unfettered business accuses others of being greedy and entitled.

>>12279

>they are subhumans! they are keeping me down that's why I'm a loser!

Hi /pol/

>>12280

Have you ever met someone addicted to meth? I have. In no way is selling meth a moral activity. You might as well start a business where you shoot people in the back of the head who are too afraid to kill themselves.

>>12281

I love how the entitled faggot leftist thinks that everyone should be forced to support him so he can pursue his hobbies that are not appreciated or enjoyed by a relevant number of the other billions of people on the planet

>>12279

>Monopolies are fair

>>12282

labor market = universe = GOD = OP PROVEN RIGHT

CAPSLOCK THREAD

>>12283

That isn't even a remotely accurate strawman. I didn't mention my success or lifestyle at all, so why are you bringing it up? Oh, right, strawman.

>>12284

>DURR CHEMICALS IN THE BRAIN ARE INHERENTLY MORALLY WRONG

Then I guess tylenol, advil, caffeine, sugar, and sex should all be illegal because they're mind-altering drugs with addictive properties.

>>12286

>Monopolies are a product of the free market and have not been maintained or produced by government historically and at present

LE HISTORICALLY ILLITERATE FACE:^)

>>12279

You realize I am middle class, am going to college, and have little to no chance of being crushed under the wheels of capitalism right?

My supposed "inferiority" plays no roll in my ideology.

>>12231

>>12290

Name me the government programs that kept Standard oil from collapsing in on itself. Please. I beg you.

>>12285

And your not entitled by wanting to pay people cents on the dollar and colluding with other capitalists to fix prices and exploit the under classes? Wringing the necks of the poor for profit isn't entitled?

>inb4 caps lock

>>12294

By the time Standard Oil got into court it had lost the vast majority of its market share

"The specters of these “Robber Barons” still inhabit the imaginary haunted houses of our history. The role of government in controlling exploitive monopolies remains unquestioned – and how many people know the basic facts of the situation, principally that it was not the consumers who opposed these companies, but their competitors? When we look at political “solutions” to pressing “problems,” we see the same pattern over and over again. Government-run education was not instituted because parents were dissatisfied with private schools, or because children were not educated, or anything like that – but rather because the teachers wanted the job security, and cultural and religious busybodies wanted to get their hands on the tender minds of children. The “New Deal” in the 1930s was not instituted because the free market made people poor, but rather because government mismanagement of the money supply destroyed almost a quarter of the wealth of the United States. Time and time again, we see that it is not freedom that leads to political control and an increase in state violence, but rather prior increases in political control and state violence. The government does not expand its control because freedom does not work; freedom does not work because the government expands its control. Thus we can see that freedom – or voluntarism, or anarchy – does not create problems that governments are required to “solve.” Rather, propagandists lie about what the government is up to (“protecting consumers” really means “using violence to protect the profits of inefficient businesses”) and the resulting expansions of political coercion and control breeds more problems, which are always ascribed to freedom."

>>12265

>>12264

>>12273

>>12279

>>12290

is /liberty/ usually this autistic?

>>12288

Except no one kills people and rips all of the copper piping out of their house for advil money.

>>12297

>forgets to give source

>yfw it's fucking cultist radio

>>12223

"Capitalism and economics are bullshit like religion, trust me. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying or are ignorant and is trying to take you off the path to true enlightenment."

Did I follow that correctly?

>>12298

WELL SOMEONE HAS TO DEFEND THE MARKET BECAUSE IT WON'T DEFEND ITSELF

>>12299

>Lol only retards get educations

>My GED will allow me to me anarcho capitalist ubermench who will have all le moniezzzzz :^)

>>12296

He is entitled to doing with his property as he sees fit. He's not entitled to using your property as he sees fit. That's libertarianism 101.

And fun fact, we're not all rich. I'm in the lower middle-class and I have no capital to speak off. I'd probably feel right at home with leftism, if I allowed myself to become an entitled, parasitic piece of shit.

>underclasses

Created by government intervention and gross ineptitude on the side of the underclasses. Blacks have been treated like shit for years, now they're hailed for their ineptitude when they are not being treated like shit again, and that has made them inept and uncivilized as fuck. Capitalism didn't fuck them over, statism did.

>>12302

>only capitalism is economics, guys :DD also capitalism is the same thing as free trade, duh

You need to rethink your life.

>>12305

>Wage approximates productivity

Then why does an indian textile worker make 10% of what an American textile worker makes? This is bullshit and you know it. No capitalist pays workers what they are worth, that would be fucking retarded and shitty business. You pay workers as little as you can possibly get away with to lower your overhead.

>Because workers never collude to fix prices right? If fixing prices is inherently wrong then you've just made a good argument for the abolition of unions.

N-no, they fix wages. Sorry people need to feed their families.

>>12308

Marxism is scientific.

>>12297

This is not a source

>>12301

>it's fucking cultist radio

Yes, Stefan Molyneux is unequivocally a cult leader for pointing out the fact that parent-child relationships are voluntary and if the child has grown to be an adult they have the right to end that relationship if they find it is harmful to them, this cultishness is only exacerbated by the fact that Stefan always tells people to see a counseling therapist before defooing and that he encourages them to debate with others.

Yeah, by the way, if you tell an abused wife to divorce her husband and break off contact you're also a cult leader.

>>12311

If it was scientific they would have tested it on dogs first.

>>12312

Stefan Molyneux; M.A., University of Toronto , author, Libertarian philosopher “Everyday Anarchy” 2008

>>12307

>Slavery wasn't a capitalist institution

>>12314

fucking kek

>>12311

not an argument

>>12314

>MARX MARX MARX

>what is it Engels?

>the dogs managed to expropriate the kibble from the cats

>excellent

and then Kapital volume 1 was written

>>12315

Right wing nut job. I am very familiar with him. that is the equivalent of me using Lenin as a source to persuade a libertarian.

>>12317

>not an argument

neither was the post he was responding too

also don't use that shit makes you sound like a stefbot

>>12310

>Then why does an indian textile worker make 10% of what an American textile worker makes? This is bullshit and you know it. No capitalist pays workers what they are worth

Currently Indians are paid like 5 dollars for a shirt that will be sold upwards of 40 bucks. Why doesn't this change? IT's not because capitalism, it's because government.

There is massive amounts of tariffs, regulation, and all sorts of shit that prevent people like you and me from opening a textile in factory, paying reasonable wages, and undercutting current clothes manufacturers. The solution is not socialism, but free trade.

>>12310

>N-no, they fix wages. Sorry people need to feed their families.

No they fix the price of labor.

>>12319

>>12319

see

>>12313

>>12323

You keep using that word.

I don not think it means what you think it means.

>>12325

Ok. He is still a nut job.

>>12304

Actually, I'm in university. You know, a step above college.

>>12306

>Marxist economist

>Credentials

So this guy is your average blogger?

>>12311

It isn't. Like with all economics, you can't test its hypotheses, and historical determinism is even more blandly unscientific.

>>12314

10/10, would kek again.

>>12316

It wasn't. Feel free to prove me otherwise.

>>12319

>2015

>Still using the left-right-dichotomy

>>12313

this completely ignores what Stef thinks "abuse" is

>>12309

You probably think the US is capitalist.

>>12328

How so?

I guess if ancaps knew anything about capitalism they wouldn't be ancaps, but still… Holy shit you guys are fucking retarded.

>>12327

Ok. Here is a refutation of every argument you have made in this entire thread.

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/cap1.pdf

No complaining about the source either.

>>12331

It is, like the rest of the world.

>>12329

>So this guy is your average blogger?

>education

>Stanford, Yale, and Harvard

yup

>>12335

Nigga link specifically to the arguments relevant to the ones I made I'm not going through that shit. I didn't post all of Stefan's book and say "the robber barons are covered in there"

>>12338

Yeah, some leftist jew's credibility skyrockets with me after I know he worked with other leftist jews in universities and hollywood

>>12340

/pol/ please go

>>12321

You responded to my post without addressing the meat of what I actually had to say.

Why would a capitalist EVER pay a worker than the bare minimum he could possibly get away with? The more money you give away to the workers the fewer profits you make.

Any capitalist who actually paid their workers the value of their labor would be extremely unsuccessful.

>>12337

What is your definition, because I think AnCaps use a slightly different one than you do.

>>12315

Stefan Molyneux is the Dinesh D'Souza of economy.

>>12342

>Why would a capitalist EVER pay a worker than the bare minimum he could possibly get away with? The more money you give away to the workers the fewer profits you make.

Because other greedy capitalists compete to higher the best employees.

You don't know the basic theory of why wage approximates productivity yet you claim to be educated enough to prove an-capism is evil. Fuck off.

>>12332

Its all the jews and the muzzies guyze!

Fugging cultural marxists xDDD

>>12344

Oh, this is classic

>austrian economics r le dumb

meme? Austrian economists, yeah, I mean, they're so crazy for saying things like raising the minimum wage will result in higher unemployment THAN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. This is a result of the basic fucking logic of price floors, unlike Keynesians, Austrians don't let TREMENDOUSLY USELESS studies about the effects of minimum wage inform their knowledge about the effects of raising the minimum wage

>>12345

Right except that under your pet ideology all of the capitalists could get together, all agree that they will all pay their workers shit wages so that they have nowhere to run and everyone maximizes their profits. If anyone disagreed then this trust would simply smash the competition.

An-caps fail to realize that their ideology already existed and it was called the gilded age.

>>12348

Making 10 cents an hour is not employment its wage slavery.

>>12349

That actually makes sense. Hmm. :^/

>>12346

Stef has never mentioned cultural marxists

>>12347

I don't hate Jews, if it were up to me the US would have taken them all in from Germany in ww2, but I certainly don't like leftists. It just so happens there's significant overlap between Jews and leftists. So I happen to really hate the politics of about 60% of Jews, but I hate the politics of most people so that's not unique. I'm a supporter of Rothbard, not of Marx, both Jews; but Rothbard wasn't a hypocrite who fucked a maid, got her pregnant, kicked her out, and then complained about the exploitation of workers.

>>12333

We're in the middle of a debate and I really don't feel like stopping it for six minutes to listen to a video that may or may not prove to be relevant, just because you're too lazy to summarize it.

>>12338

Yeah, I get it, he's, like, really smart because he visited a university, and we all know universities are totally not strongholds of indoctrination.

>B-but you said you're in university!

Studying law, not some marxist cuckold bullshit.

>>12342

>Why would a capitalist EVER pay a worker than the bare minimum he could possibly get away with?

He wouldn't, but without a bunch of politicians to fuck the workers over, the bare minimum the capitalist could get away with would be a lot higher.

>Any capitalist who actually paid their workers the value of their labor would be extremely unsuccessful.

Labor has no objective value. If I spend ten hours digging a hole in the middle of a desert, then I don't deserve ten labor-hour tokens that I can exchange for ten hours worth of work that actually served a purpose.

>>12350

There would be an incentive to break the line and get all the best workers. You're too stupid to understand how incentives work, that's why you're a leftist.

>>12351

If you're so inept that you can only produce about 15 cents an hour and therefore you're only worth about 10 cents/hr no one is going to hire you at $7/hr. So if there's a minimum wage you're really fucked.

>>12354

>Studying law, not some marxist cuckold bullshit.

suddenly economics itself is marxist cuckold bullshit kek

>>12350

>An-caps fail to realize that their ideology already existed and it was called the gilded age.

Are we talking about the glorious days of the free market where the military intervened on behalf of factory owners and crimes against the striking workers weren't properly persecuted? Sure doesn't sound like cronyism to me.

>>12352

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Mises explains the necessity of a market economy.

>>12355

Except that's wrong.

http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/2014-job-creation-in-states-that-raised-the-minimum-wage

>>12359

>Marxian economics

yeah totally legit stuff xdd

>>12356

>Rothbard

>Incredibly wealthy family

Get the fuck out. The guy was from the upper middle-class, like most fucking academics.

>>12359

Marxist economics is.

>>12362

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY FUCKING VARIABLES GO INTO JOB CREATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT?

You're retarded.

We all know a minimum wage of $1000 would result in massive unemployment. Same with a minimum wage of $100. To a lesser degree that would be true of $90, $80, $50, $30, $20, $19, $18, $15, $10, $5, $2. To a lesser degree, but it applies regardless.

A PRICE FLOOR IS A PRICE FLOOR

A PRICE FLOOR RESULTS IN BUYERS PURCHASING LESS

IF THE MINIMUM PRICE OF CARS IS $50,000 PEOPLE BUY LESS CARS

IF THE MINIMUM PRICE OF LABOR IS $20/HR PEOPLE BUY LESS LABOR

THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT PRICE FLOOR COULD NOT DECREASE THE QUANTITY OF GOOD OR SERVICE BEING SUPPLIED

THE DECREASE OF WHAT IS BEING SUPPLIED IS LABOR

THAT MEANS FEWER PEOPLE HAVE JOBS

HOW DO YOU NOT GET THIS BASIC SHIT YOU RETARD

>>12367

>implying the manipulation of the money supply is relevant to free market advocates who want a free market in money, in which gold-backed currencies would generally be favored

Yeah, loose fiscal policy causes malinvestment and creates the seeds of a recession, and that malinvestment is never corrected because of stimulus; blame the government, not the market for that bullshit.

>>12365

Right, Chávez was doing such a good job that Venezuela is running low on toilet paper now. And these anti-government protesters are surely the reason for that.

>>12365

>muh trial and error

le retarded

"he Lange model states that if all production is performed by a public body such as the state, and there is a functioning price mechanism, this economy will be Pareto-efficient, like a hypothetical market economy under perfect competition."

Prices are meaningless if you don't have private ownership of the means of production.

This is like saying one giant firm could run every business on Earth and it could just sell stuff to itself and still rationally allocate goods. Brilliant.

The same diseconomies of scale and loss of price systems that would effect a massive firm would effect a socialist system.

" Ludwig von Mises argued that socialist officials cannot simulate the pricing of future capital goods in financial markets. Because there are no private dividends, there is no stock market to regulate industry. Lange admitted in several places that socialist officials would direct investment arbitrarily"

tl;dr you have no stock market to direct investments

I'm just here because of the Stefan Molyneux rap video.

>>12371

>He studied economics in general and he picked up his marxist economics on his own

Look, I don't fucking care. This is a thinly disguised argumentum ad verecundiam. If you want to measure the academic dicks of our favorite economists, go ahead. I'd rather we didn't, but hey.

>Venezuela is under attack from the CIA as all central and south american countries have been when they wanted independence and socialism

How exactly has this caused the toilet paper crisis?

>>12375

Economic warfare from the US and the paying for counter government forces. Hoarding and trade fuckery are an issue. Also the general problems caused by the puppet government before chavez only ever focusing on oil for the countries wealth.

>>12375

>what does a foreign entity working to fuck with you have to do with a problem?

>>12366

How do you not get the basic concept that if people have more money they spend more and thereby revitalize the economy?

But no. If everyone saves money because they are poor and never spends anything that will help the economy because…… LIBERTY right?

>>12366

Except literally everything you are saying is a lie.

>>12370

>claims only capitalism creates prosperity

>will swear that real capitalism has never existed

>>12379

>How do you not get the basic concept that if people have more money they spend more and thereby revitalize the economy?

If that was true a $1000/hr minimum wage would fix the US economy

Hey give me $50 from the register to spend in your store it's going to revitalize your store

>>12380

The effects of price floors are well known you fucking retard.

>>12382

>The effects of price floors are well known you fucking retard.

Correct and they do the opposite of what you claim

>>12382

Except small businesses cant afford 1000 dollar wages.

They can afford 15.

>>12381

We've gotten close to a system of free enterprise. We've never had 100% economic freedom, but getting close to it has worked well.

>>12383

Yup, so if you have vacant rooms in your hotel at $50/night, put a price floor of minimum pricing to $80/night and those rooms will fill right up! Jesus fuck you're stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor

IT CREATES A SURPLUS YOU STUPID FUCK HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN ECONOMICS EVER IN YOUR FUCKING LIFE

>>12382

>libertarian doesn't understand what a market is

>>12384

If that's an efficient business model why don't you go start one like that?

>>12386

>Keynesian bullshit about how spending is all we need, yeah, fuck production

>>12388

>if everyone is in soul crushing poverty this will improve the economy

>>12389

>if you take away money from businessmen that they were going to invest in their businesses and give it to people that will blow it on consumer goods that will grow the economy

k

>>12258

>Sure, you can try to be a musician, but you'll only succeed if you're good.

>Sure, you can try to be an artist, but you'll only eventually succeed if you're very talented.

/liberty/ confirmed for normie with shit-tier taste

>>12391

If your art is 2subtle4mostpeople then you can't pursue it as career. Boohoo. Do it is a hobby. People should be held at gunpoint to support you because you're so much smarter than them and you need 2 do yur art1!

>>12377

>Hoarding

Of course people are hoarding when there's a shortage. In a free market, that wouldn't be a problem, as the demand would rise and higher amounts of the product in question would be produced. I doubt it's that big of a deal in socialist countries, either, but if it is, then that's why.

>trade fuckery

Could you be any more vague?

>Also the general problems caused by the puppet government before chavez

I have a hard time believing it would take a free market in a somewhat industrialized country fifteen years to create a shortage of toilet paper.

>>12378

If you bring the CIA into the equation without telling us how they are relevant, you can justify EVERY failing of a socialist country. Not enough toilet paper? CIA! Too much toilet paper? CIA! You know what they say about unfalsifiable claims? That they are fucking unfalsifiable and not to be taken serious.

>>12262

>what is bittorrent

LOOK EVERYONE I WRITE IN RED ALLCAPS I'M RIGHT AND YOU ARE STUPID ALSO FUCK POOR PEOPLE

t. ancap

>>12394

>millions of people will all, without fail, not pay you for art that they greatly appreciate

maybe in entitled leftistland this is what happens but not where I live

>>12395

>I hate all poor people because I don't want to be shot if I refuse to give welfare to irresponsible single mothers

>>12396

SO YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT PEOPLE WILL ACT AGAINST THEIR RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST

>>12398

>Implying acting against your moral principles is in your rational self-interest

>Being this much of a materialistic pig

Fucking commies.

>>12399

IT IS YOUR RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST TO HAVE MORE MONEY

>>12398

Altruism is denying your happiness for the happiness of others.

Charity & volunteering are generally not altruistic acts.

>>12399

holy shit the fags on this board actually pay for music

>>12402

Stirner was a hack

>>12400

Not when it's against my moral principles to get that money. What's so hard to understand about that?

>>12403

I never said that. I'm strictly against intellectual property. I'll still support an artist when I feel like it and have the means to do so, but being a semi-poorfag, my means are limited.

>>12404

Stirnerposting is the best thing /leftypol/ ever created.

>>12408

It's from /lit/ anokchan.

>>12407

SO THE THEORY IS THAT ARTISTS WILL SURVIVE OFF CHARITY

Goddamn, the assblast in this thread is legendary. There's probably more to these lefties than I thought.

holy shit are you ancaps always this assblasted?

>>12366

this would only be a problem in a capitalist society

in a socialist society porkies wouldn't own the means of production, who does and who doesn't get a job wouldn't be their decision

>>12415

>roduction, who does and who doesn't get a job wouldn't be their decision

yay slavery

>>12410

Then I take it back, /leftypol/ is entirely worthless.

>>12411

>wut is kickstarter

>>12415

>in a socialist society porkies wouldn't own the means of production, who does and who doesn't get a job wouldn't be their decision

I'm sure the government can do a much better job allocating jobs, suuuuure.

>>12416

>your choice of who does and doesn't get a job isn't shunted of to porkies

>das slavery

your a self parody

>>12417

>implying he isn't an anarchist

>>12417

BASICALLY CHARITY

>>12419

Then I guess charity isn't so bad, when you use the term so broadly.

>>12417

>wut is kickstarter

A service that funds the creation of a project, it doesn't mean profits or that they'll actually make any money. it's essentially paying them enough to make the thing not support themselves

>>12416

Owning your own workplace is now slavery.

>>12423

>it's immoral to use force on others and their property or force others into slavery

Correction: It's immoral to coerce others into surrendering their property/liberties/person, it is not immoral to defend your property

>but it's moral to use force to validate property of more than you need so that others are consequently forced to be your slave

First of all "need" is subjective. You can get all of your life-needs met, literally all of them to maximize your life span, but have a very shitty standard of living.

>force others to be your slave

If I rent you my hammer for $3/hr so you can go be a contractor for $10/hr I did not enslave you, you were perfectly free to fuck off and refuse the offer. Slaves are not free to leave at any time.

>>12422

Can you tell me a good alternative that does not include extortion? I'm not even making a case specifically for kickstarter. If it sucks so much, then set up a PayPal account, a Patreon or whatever the fuck else you feel like.

>>12423

>>but it's moral to use force to validate property of more than you need

How much do we "need"? Is there a non-arbitrary limit of how much each of us needs?

>>12427

So basically, you know whether someone has too much when you see someone have too much. That's not arbitrary at all, I guess.

>>12427

>boy, does porky really need to own those dairy farms, that wheat plantation and that water source to meet his life needs! what would he do without them, let alone all that surplus value he extracts from the labor of his sla- good workers?

Do you really need to listen to good music?

Do you really need a varied diet, or good-tasting food?

Do you really need the privilege to shitpost on 8chan with your entitled faggy leftist friends?

Do you really need to not be exploited by porky?

Do you really need any form of entertainment?

Do you really need any food beyond protein powder, lentils, and vitamin supplements?

Do you really need a room to sleep that has twice the area that your body needs to lie down flat?

Do you really need to running water?

>>12429

need to have running water*

>>12433

*their

Fuck me I'm tired.

>>12433

>>12434

It's almost as if these marxist cunts in college had too much freetime on their hands.

>>12437

>Implying the labor theory of value isn't bullshit

>>12438

>Implying the labor theory of value isn't bullshit

explain why

>inb4 mudpies

>>12439

>Implying I don't need two yachts for my life to be fulfilled

Dammit, I need those yachts! Why can't anyone provide me my yachts for free?

>>12438

>LTV is bullshit

So you pay your computer to do work?

>>12439

>to make money from work that other people have done

They wouldn't be able to do that work if they weren't given access to capital goods that were painstakingly accumulated by their owners.

>>12438

The capital goods they only have because of others work

>>12440

I can't remember you ever refuting the mudpie-argument.

>>12442

What the…?

>>12444

Except that's empirically false because some people buy capital goods with savings from their salaries.

>>12445

because spending all day making a couple mudpies is

1 way more than the socially necessary labor time

(If I spend a week making a shitty chair when the average time for a better one is just a couple days my chair isn't worth anymore than the couple days)

2. exchange and use value is still taken into account in LTV

>>12446

>their salaries

you do realize they get paid that salary off of the surplus value of workers right?

>>12447

>it sure takes porky a lot of work to sit on his ass and accumulate surplus value.

>Work for a wage for 4 decades

>Open my own business

>Hire some 20 year old

>They demand the full product of their wage because anything less is exploitation

>Even though I spent 80% of my life accumulating these goods

>They should just have free access to them

you're an entitled faggot

LTV is still bullshit because it predicts labor intensive industries to have higher profits, capital-intensive industries have higher profits, and also 10000 hours building a pile of piss bottles is not worth more than 10 hours of surgery.

>>12449

>you do realize they get paid that salary off of the surplus value of workers right?

You do realize some people work for a wage before opening their own business you dipshit

>>12447

>so you let your sla- good workers decide what the value of their labor is worth and what they do with it in capitalism? kek.

Repeating the view of your opposition and then laughing is not a rational counter-argument.

>it sure takes porky a lot of work to sit on his ass and accumulate surplus value.

>dat strawman

>>12449

>If I spend a week making a shitty chair when the average time for a better one is just a couple days my chair isn't worth anymore than the couple days

What if your chair is slightly better than the other one, but it took you five days to make it while other chairs are made in just four days? How much is it worth then? And how do you even determine whether one chair is better than another one? Going by the amount of labor that is socially necessary makes the labor theory of value even more worthless.

>exchange and use value is still taken into account in LTV

How?

>>12445

Labor is what you pay for. If you had products made entirely by machines that were maintained by machines, transported by machines, and sold by machines, they would have no value.

You do not pay machines for their labor. They do not ask for payment. You pay people for their labor. They do ask for payment.

The value of a product is determined by how much socially required labor goes into it.

>>12455

>and for the how many porkies there are they either inherited ownership or were born into enough wealth to purchase means of production themselves.

Oh yes, society would be so much better if wealthy parents gambled away their wealth instead of saving it for their children those evil bastards!

>>12453

>What if your chair is slightly better than the other one, but it took you five days to make it while other chairs are made in just four days?

this is where Use value is taken into account if I need the chair to last a long time the better chair that took five days to make for that much more durability is worth more. But If I want an average chair just to put on a patio I don't really give a shit about the extra durability really wouldn't mean much to me. Depends what I actually want to use it for. LTV is literally just saying that some things will require a minimum of labor that you need to put in to make a commodity and the more labor and resources invested the more it's worth it to sell in order to recoup what you put in.

>>12456

Poor children don't all die off. Wealthy children don't need that money any more than kids born into poverty do.

>>12454

>Labor is what you pay for. If you had products made entirely by machines that were maintained by machines, transported by machines, and sold by machines, they would have no value.

TOP KEK

>Super advanced robot puts car together

>Car has no value because no entitled leftist rubbed their greasy fingers on it

o-ok

>The value of a product is determined by how much socially required labor goes into it.

Socially necessary labor

"average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity"

Well first of all this is functionally impossible to calculate.

Productivity depends upon exchange value. So your theory about objects being objectively valuable has to look at subjective prices avoid consequences like mud pies being worth more than surgery. Meaning the value isn't objective.

>>12457

>the more labor and resources invested the more it's worth it to sell in order to recoup what you put in.

yeah because there's no such thing as being so unnecessarily complex you lose value

>oh wait

>german tanks

>>12458

You don't need air conditioning, shoes, clothes, nice food, or an education any more than kids born into Bangladesh do. Oh, wait, it's a different story when your shit is getting redistributed?

Faggot.

>>12460

>yeah because there's no such thing as being so unnecessarily complex you lose value

You lose Use value but the amount needed to make a profit of the tank is the same silly

>>12460

>The big question that should be on one’s mind at this point should not be the elaboration of this theory of value, but rather what justifies the claim that labor is the only source of value, the foundational claim of the LTV? There are many that dispute this, and many elaborate theories have been constructed about other things value can just as easily be based on such as physical goods production, etc. There is actually a quite good and simple point that explains why human labor is the sole source of value. Supposing that there is an industry that is completely automated and devoid of human labor inputs of any form, not even occasional maintenance, would the products of this industry have a value? Would anyone pay for the products of this industry directly? Let us be naïve and tentatively say ‘yes’. Who exactly are we paying? The managers of this industry? They’re machines. The workers? They’re machines. But, you may say, how do you know machines don’t produce value? Well, because we don’t recognize the work of machines as something that requires anything in exchange for being done, nor do machines demand us to.

>Machines have no desires to fulfill, no social obligations, such as payment they demand us to meet in order for them to do work. If you paid a machine for its work, what would it do with it? Nothing. Machines work and keep working until they can’t; that is all there is to them in a sphere that only inputs but never needs to take from the economy. The fully automated industry creates its products, we take it, and the machines keep on working to create the products. These products are free because they have no value, there is no conscious being behind it all that will refuse to hand over or make the product if it isn’t compensated for its labor. Maybe these products are picked up by truckers, taken to warehouses, and distributed in malls, and thus these items gain value through this human labor, but as far as the machines go there is no value that anyone recognizes. If these items have a price at the end of the day it is only because after being produced, a human being somewhere has a hand in its movement and distribution even if they are behind a fleet of automatic drones doing the physical work. Anything that is paid is always paid to a person who engages in the economic sphere to give and take according to the value they command. The recognition and realization of value is a relation between human beings and nothing else.

>Supposing that someone owned that fully automated factory, anything he charges is just an arbitrary price gate enforced by government force, and there is no value being recognized in the price. If machines ever become sentient, acquire self-determination, and desires to fulfill, then their work will create value, until then human beings and their labor is the only source of value. All things traded, all things bought, are only recognition that somewhere, somehow, a person spent a portion of their life working to move, create, and get you to buy a commodity.

>>12461

Actually im totally for that.

Take the 1% of the globe and distribute their wealth globaly.

>>12464

Nope, just that you're a hypocrite that wouldn't be willing to accept the actual decline in standard of living entailed by your philosophy

If we're all equal, no one with a computer in the west no matter how poor is going to have an increase in their standard of living. Literally 99% of the population in every western nation would have a major decline in their standard of living.

>>12465

See above you selfish faggot, if you want global equality that means we're taking your shoes and 90% of your clothes and sending them to Africa.

Reminder that leftists don't actually care about equality they're just envious cunts and don't like the idea of people doing better than them

>>12230

>>12230

>>12466

>implying my wealth would even constitute a drop in the preverbial bucket

Nigger I have 3 bucks in my bank account. I'm poorer than a lot of people in Africa right now. You seem to not grasp the sheer amount of wealth held by international elites.

>>12468

You've had access to smart phones and computers your whole life! Do you really NEED that?! Think of the kids in Bangladesh that NEVER have had a smartphone. Clearly they're more deserving of one than you have. So go donate your phone to some children in Bangladesh.

>>12223

Based wolff is is based.

I'm no longer a ancap thanks to him.

>>12470

>Leftist posting something on projection

>Envy mentioned

You do realize leftists empirically have a stronger "envy" center in their, brain? You have the ideology of envy.

>>12471

>i entirely accept this.

That's pathetic. You're so impotent you'd rather everyone, including you, be poorer, than to have a system of free competition.

>what your argument comes down to is

Blah blah strawman not reading.

>>12472

Clearly you didn't understand economics in the first place, nothing of value was lost.

>>12469

>You've had access to smart phones and computers your whole life!

Never owned a smartphone. I have one of those shitty sliders that costs like 20 bucks and is INDESTRUCTIBLE. On a side note I hate smartphones. Would rather have a flip or a slider any day.

>Do you really NEED that?!

Most jobs today require you to fill out the application online so yes, I actually do need one in order to seek out employment.

You are actually tapping into a real school of leftist thought called Maoist third worldism that essentially states the the proletariat of first world nations are actually just leeching off of the proletariat of the third world and are in effect bourgeois.

I and anyone else who is sane on the left. Do not fall into this category.

>>12474

>You do realize leftists empirically have a stronger "envy" center in their, brain? You have the ideology of envy.

The webm literally called you out for this. You're just projecting your dislike of the envy in yourself onto "leftists" so you can feel better about yourself.

>>12476

>I and anyone else who is sane on the left. Do not fall into this category.

Meaning redistribution stops as soon as it hurts you, you fucking hypocrite.

>>12477

Except I don't give a fuck if people are rich? It legitimately does not bother me that Bill Gates has nearly one-hundred billion dollars. I have none of the wealth envy that plagues leftists.

>>12478

N-no. You are missing the point. Maoism third worldism essentially alienates over a third of the entire population of the planet.

Just because one prole has it better off than another doesn't mean they both aren't in the same position when it comes to the framework of power. Its an inherently anti worker position to hold. Any ideology that proports to be for the poor and then proceeds to steal from the poor because they were born in the wrong country is a shit ideology.

In no socialist system do commissars come into factory workers or students homes and redistribute their wealth, that is ridiculous. Once again, the wealth would come from the global capitalist class.

As a matter of fact i'm not being hypocritical. I'm actually being consistent in my defense of the lower classes all over the world and not picking and choosing which workers are the true workers in the ultimate true Scotsman fallacy.

>>12479

>>12479

Right. So if I as a poor wage "slave" won billions of dollars in the lottery I wouldn't have any obligation to give it to the third worlders because ayy lmao I am not a capitalist xdd

And no matter how wealthy I am as a non-capitalist I should never have my relatively massive wealth redistributed.

>not hypocritical

fuck off

>>12481

In a socialist society lotteries would not exist because its just a way to trick people into giving their money away to the state so that is a non starter.

>fuck off

10/10 great refutation

>>12483

But there are non-capitalists who have gotten rich off of the lottery and the overall point stands: from the perspective of a man in Bangladesh, you and all your faggy leftist friends are "super rich."

>>12484

Ok. And? I didn't do that to them.

Make the capitalists and the exorbitantly wealthy Bangladeshis bail them out.

>>12484

Also you realize that almost everyone who wins the lottery goes bankrupt shortly afterwards right?

>>12485

>Make someone else bail them out!

Even if the top 10% from every nation was equally redistributed, all of their wealth not just their income, you would still be richer than the average Bangladeshis and be a valid target for coercive redistribution. I'm sure you'll accept it gracefully unless you're a piece of shit hypocrite.

>>12487

>yes, because we fought in worker's movements to demand minimum wages, 40 hour work weeks, paid leave,

LOL yeah it had nothing to do with the accumulation of capital goods by businessmen that allowed workers to produce a lot more with a lot less labor. Disregarding that historical illiteracy on your part, there's no reason you're entitled to so much more luxury than the average Bangladeshi. To each according to his need, nigger.

>>12488

What do you not understand about the phrase worker solidarity?

>>12490

IF YOU HAD SO MUCH SOLIDARITY WITH THEM WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU REFUSING THEM ACCESS TO YOUR SURPLUS CONSUMER GOODS HUH

>>12487

>i-it was the benvolence of the capital gods! you're historically illiterate, muh NAP!

>t-thank you porky!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_movement

>there's no reason you're entitled to so much more luxury than the average Bangladeshi.

neither are you, porky.

>>12491

Because were both workers and I have nothing to give them.

Give a man a fish etc etc etc

>>12492

tell that to your buddy who says he wouldn't accept his shit going to Bangladesh

>>12493

Productivity approximates wage in a competitive market, not negotiable, it's basic economics but you're the same fucking retard that, holy fuck you're so fucking stupid you think the minimum wage doesn't effect employment

>>12496

>I have nothing to give them.

Comrade Distributor disagrees, you have many more clothes than average Bangladeshi, give to prole!

>>12497

>Productivity approximates wage in a competitive market

No it doesn't. What a Capitalist can get away with paying a worker dictates wage.

Once again, if this were true textile workers in India would make the same as American Textile workers.

>Comrade Distributor disagrees, you have many more clothes than average Bangladeshi, give to prole!

The word you are looking for is Commissar and clothes aren't means of production. No one can make anything with a shirt.

>>12244

The most important jobs are not the most highly paid. How come bankers get 10 or 11 times what a soldier or a doctor would?

How come teachers get shit for pay?

>>12499

>No it doesn't. What a Capitalist can get away with paying a worker dictates wage.

BUSINESSES COMPETE FOR EMPLOYEES YOU FUCKING RETARD THAT'S WHY THEY PAY MORE THAN THE MINIMUM, GREEDY BUSINESSMEN WILL PAY GOOD EMPLOYEES MORE MONEY SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY THAN IF THEY HAD NONE OF THE GOOD EMPLOYEES

>Once again, if this were true textile workers in India would make the same as American Textile workers.

We've been over this you dense motherfucker. Tariffs and regulation prohibit an equalization in the wages.

>The word you are looking for is Commissar and clothes aren't means of production. No one can make anything with a shirt.

So what, you still have more consumer goods than you need, plus comrade Bangladeshi needs all your silverware to open a butcher shop.

>>12501

And employees are forced to compete with each other.

There are more people looking for jobs than jobs available.

>>12500

>The most important jobs are not the most highly paid. How come bankers get 10 or 11 times what a soldier or a doctor would?

Because they own a business cartelized by the government

>How come teachers get shit for pay?

Scarcity + benefits. They get many months off, have a low minimum required amt of education, it's a cushy job and lots of plebs are willing to do it.

Education should be mostly online, anyways. No reason for the west to spend hundreds of millions on physical campuses when the education can be done online and socializing done at sporting events. If the state controls something, it doesn't really evolve. See: education, welfare, roads, etc.

>>12502

There are fewer good employees than there are jobs available.

>>12506

Plebes complaining did nothing to accelerate the accumulation of capital goods that is the primary feature of a wealthy society.

>>12480

>100 years ago, libertarianism was different, therefore you're wrong!!!!!1

Fucking lefties.

>>12510

This picture isn't from a remotely free market environment, even if it was, I don't have wealth envy, businessmen making voluntary arrangements with their employees doesn't harm me.

So can anyone please explain how the people with more money are not going to continue to use that money to grow at the expense of the rest of the world?

>>12455

>why can't lolberts just be honest and consistent with what they advocate.

You mean, that people magically acquire capital and then pay their workers a cent every hour? That's not our vision, you fucking idiot. As for extracting the surplus value and owning the means of production: Yes to the latter, people would own the means of production. You own means of production, as you're typing on a computer, so I guess leftists aren't as strictly against it as they claim to be.

Surplus value is a meaningless concept, as is the entire labor theory of value.

>>12512

Can you please tell me how leftists don't make completely arbitrary distinctions between legitimate forms of property and quantity?

>>12513

What the hell is the tax evasion amount supposed to prove? Seriously. What the hell are absolute numbers (not even relative numbers) supposed to prove here?

>>12515

How is it arbitrary?

Some property is used to produce more value. Others don't.

The leftist argument discusses the former and not the latter. Trying to conflate the two is literally just obfuscation.

>>12517

>Some property is used to produce more value. Others don't.

Computers can be used to produce more value. So can knives, are knives only a means of production if you plan on butchering an animal in the next few months? Are computers only a means of production if they aren't being used by leftists? Is a car producing more value if I work from home, or only if I drive to work, or only if I use it as part of my job? To pretend it's not an arbitrary definition is literally just autism.

>is literally just obfuscation.

>>12517

>How is it arbitrary?

>Some property is used to produce more value. Others don't.

Everything can be a means of production, if you're creative enough. I've heard of one (former) homeless guy who built a house out of glass bottles. Does that suddenly make glass bottles a means of production?

>>12518

>if you think the capitalist mode of production, which functions by basically you do doing nothing while others work is magic, then yes. i guess from porky's office chair it kind of does appear to be magic.

Porky. Does. Not. Fucking. Exist! Except MAYBE in Saudi Arabia or in the White House. The CEO's of Top 500 companies work a ton to keep their businesses growing. They may be pieces of shit, but you're hating on these pieces of shit for the wrong reason.

>>12508

No I haven't.

Your inability to understand what means of production means isn't on me.

>>12517

>can't compete with a larger business

Wow you clearly never understood an-capism in the first place you fuck.

1. Diseconomy of scale woud disadvantage massive businesses

2. Private militias exist today and would continue to exist

3. Security agencies could and would overlap and have mutual agreements just like cellphone carriers to

>>12521

>>12520

>>12521

>this attempt to deny differences every single time

I dont know why you guys are totally fucking baffled by the concept of "the means of production."

In economics and sociology, the means of production are physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value, such as the facilities, machinery, tools[1] infrastructural capital and natural capital.

The means of production includes two broad categories of objects: instruments of labor (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials). If creating a good, people operate on the subjects of labor, using the instruments of labor, to create a product; or, stated another way, labour acting on the means of production creates a good.[2]

In an agrarian society the means of production is the soil and the shovel. In an industrial society it is the mines and the factories, and in a knowledge economy the offices and computers. In the broad sense, the "means of production" includes the "means of distribution" such as stores, the internet and railroads.[3]

The ownership of the means of production and control over the surplus product generated by their operation is a key factor in categorizing different economic systems. In classical economics the means of production is the "factors of production" minus financial capital and minus human capital.

THIS ISNT FUCKING HARD JESUS CHRIST ARE YOU INTENTIONALLY BEING DENSE?

BECAUSE A KNIFE CAN BE USED IN A RESTAURANT AS A MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY A CHEF DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL KNIVES EVERYWHERE ARE SUCH.

>>12521

>>12520

You've both conflated the idea of personal property with the productive property.

There's a difference between "can" and "are" producing value.

>>12526

>now lefties have a problem with it for a lot of reasons.

The main reason they have a problem with it is they feel like they're entitled to impose their view of acceptable use of private property in a voluntary context with force. Cunts.

>>12527

>BECAUSE A KNIFE CAN BE USED IN A RESTAURANT AS A MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY A CHEF DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL KNIVES EVERYWHERE ARE SUCH.

Yeah, it magically moves into the realm of "unacceptable" if it's used for profit.

>>12526

>now lefties have a problem with it for a lot of reasons.

The main reason they have a problem with it is they feel like they're entitled to impose their view of acceptable use of private property in a voluntary context with force. Cunts.

>>12527

>BECAUSE A KNIFE CAN BE USED IN A RESTAURANT AS A MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY A CHEF DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL KNIVES EVERYWHERE ARE SUCH.

Yeah, it magically moves into the realm of "unacceptable" if it's used for profit.j

>>12527

>>12526

>now lefties have a problem with it for a lot of reasons.

The main reason they have a problem with it is they feel like they're entitled to impose their view of acceptable use of private property in a voluntary context with force. Cunts.

>>12527

>BECAUSE A KNIFE CAN BE USED IN A RESTAURANT AS A MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY A CHEF DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL KNIVES EVERYWHERE ARE SUCH.

Yeah, it magically moves into the realm of "unacceptable" if it's used for profit.j

>>12533

>>12533

>Implying FDA regulation wasn't what allowed Shrkeli to have a monopoly

Thank god you're not an an-cap anymore I'd hate to have a retard like you on my side

>>12530

Capitalism already imposes its view of acceptable private property use.

>>12533

>>12533

>Implying FDA regulation wasn't what allowed Shrkeli to have a monopoly

Thank god you're not an an-cap anymore I'd hate to have a retard like you on my side

>>12246

It is working within the confines of a capitalist society that is certainly true. But the point is that its not privately owned, there are no shareholders, no extraction of surplus value, etc.

>>12273

Nice strawman. The point is to make work its own reward, obviously it won't happen tomorrow, there will still be wages and stuff until we can afford post-work society.

>>12246

It is working within the confines of a capitalist society that is certainly true. But the point is that its not privately owned, there are no shareholders, no extraction of surplus value, etc.

>>12273

Nice strawman. The point is to make work its own reward, obviously it won't happen tomorrow, there will still be wages and stuff until we can afford post-work society.

>>12303

The only people who have been defending Capitalism is the world are Social Democrats, people like you want to run crisis capitalism that pushes us into the grave.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/weber/protestant-ethic/

Stay mad, /liberty/.

HOLY FUCK!

Just got here and I gotta say, /liberty/ got btfo.

I really didn't think the libertarian argument was essentially accusing others of being lazy and all caps red text posting. What a bunch of fucking crybabys.

>>12543

Funny I did the same thing and I got the exact opposite impression.

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Hotwheels is a nigger who needs to fix his shit site.

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Flood Detected; Post Descarded

Hotwheels is a nigger who needs to fix his shit site.

>>12548

>>12544

>>12548

Y'know what, I'm going to give the ancaps the benefit of the doubt here and suggest that redtext allcaps poster here has been someone faking as an ancap the whole time.

>>12555

I really don't like the meme either. And this unintelligent shitposting thread is disgusting.

?

>>12555

Nah,

>>12544

and

>>12548

are obviously bullshit but the rest of it is a real guy.

>>12555

The difference between porky and le happy merchant is that porky acts in his own objective self-interest instead of being an arbitrarily evil scapegoat who is behind everything

>>12564

>objective self-interest

No. That's not what objective means. It's still subjective.

>>12223

>Fat

>Unsociable voice

>Shoulders slumped forward

>Oy Vey hand rubs at the beginning

>Can only get his ideas across with shitty comedy

>Thinks paying attention to economics is somehow a religion

>Thinks it has to do with "doing what the market tells us" when the reality is great Capitalists do the exact opposite of what the market is telling us and seeing if it flows properly

>Tries to justify theft

>Thinks bureaucrats are good

Yep, definitely a lefty.

>>12231

I'd like to state that art had objective value before the socialist injections into the US state of affairs.

>>12573

Also doesn't know what objective means. Value can literally never be objective.

>>12573

>Tries to justify theft

Property is theft.

>Thinks bureaucrats are good

His point is that there is no significant difference between a bureaucrat and an executive. Being terrified that you might have a bureaucrat tell you want to do, but eagerly doing whatever an executive tells you is one of the cognitive dissonances held by people who support capitalism.

>>12574

>>12578

Yes, the actual value of the artwork is subjective. I meant objective standards that artists had to follow, but it's late at night and I'm distracted by more important shit.

>>12576

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/weber/protestant-ethic/

http://www.rae.com.pt/Caderno_wb_2010/Benjamin%20Capitalism-as-Religion.pdf

>>12576

It was 2 or three lefties and two or three libertarians shitflinging at unimaginable speeds.

>>12579

Alright, now this is something I can work off of.

>Property is theft

Are we using the basis of illegitimate ties to property based on violence and coercion from hundreds of years gone by, which is a legitimate argument, or are we working on the basis of "lol you can't own things individually because workers!" lefty bullshit?

If we're working on the first basis, then there's certain qualifications for something to be private property that Holly Fretwell developed. It must be…

Definable (you must be able to define its boundaries, including underground and air rights over it if those belong to you or someone else)

Defensible (you must be able to defend those boundaries, this could be as simple as a barb wired fence/horse/shotgun or as advanced as a physical building structure with guards)

Exclusive (you must have strict rights to decide who is allowed on your property)

Alterable (you must hold a monopoly over the ability to alter your property in a way that will best suit you and your community, as well as the ability to reap the fruits of your production on your property such as if you grew a vegetable garden or kept a horse shed)

Liable (you must be liable for any damages your private property causes to others, this mostly takes the form of pollution and is determined through common law/the anarchist equivalents of common law)

in order to be private property. Based on the above, you can see how squatters rights would allow people to "take over" property if it wasn't being used for long periods of time, so please don't try to make an argument regarding such land.

Given the first argument (illegitimate ownership of property), there is no magical amount of redistribution that will fix this, and simply allowing the workers to take over the means of production would most likely be a violent affair and thus would still be illegitimate ownership (obviously if it's not a violent affair then there was some sort of voluntary transfer that took place). The most likely course of action would be an equivalent to what happened to the airplane industry after deregulation. That is to say, mega-corporations who abuse this illegitimate ownership of property would not be able to sustain themselves, they would collapse, and squatters rights would be the big "fuck you" that would keep them from abusing their current land ownership. Government land would effectively be considered "free land for the taking" unless someone could prove a legitimate claim to it prior to government ownership. The joy of Voluntarism is that people can claim collective ownership over a property if they really want to and no one will stop them. The issue is when collectives try and keep individuals from owning property under the threat of violence. Would illegitimate claims to property still exist? Of course, but to solve all those claims is virtually impossible, and property rights are the fundamental principles that are needed in order for an entrepreneur to invest their resources.

The best part is that under a system of private property ownership, people will naturally gear the resources of their property towards what would be the best "collective" use in most situations because it will be the most "profitable" use. I could leave my property as a garden if I'm a dick, but if my neighbors own bison or horses, it's a much more effective for me to rent the rights to use said property for grazing than it is to have a garden, and I could make my property even more valuable by building a horse shed. Many people in Montana do this. You might argue that it would be more effective to just let the other people own that piece of land because they happen to use it the most, but then property rights become muddled and I have less of an incentive to invest into my property and make it more valuable since I can't confirm that I will continue to own it when said rights are based on use rather than DDEAL.

>>12579

>His point is that there is no significant difference between a bureaucrat and an executive.

I can think of a few major differences.

>Being terrified that you might have a bureaucrat tell you want to do, but eagerly doing whatever an executive tells you is one of the cognitive dissonances held by people who support capitalism.

Alright, and why is that the case?

A bureaucrat will "fine" you if you fail to follow standards they set out, and if you refuse to pay said fines you will be locked into a cage created by the bureaucrat's goons and robbed of various things. This is a form of violent coercion, and that is why Capitalists disapprove of it.

An executive could potentially "fine" you and thus make you subject to that bureaucrat, but he must first find a legal reason to fine you in order to do so. There may be repercussions for not following an executive orders (such as the ability to lose your job, becoming unhireable with his friends, etc.), but there is no one locking you in a cage. Libertarians do not believe in victimless crimes (this alone eliminates 99.9% of laws on the books), so even if the executive had a grudge against you, he must use sound reasoning and prove that harm was done in order to be taken seriously, and if this isn't an obvious case (E.G. you -robbed- him), it's very hard to prove (though not impossible). Simply put, the executive can only hold as much power over you as you allow him to, and without current regulations that benefit him, the executive's business models would likely collapse (or seriously downsize) keeping them from easily forming a monopoly that could give them that sort of power.

Common Law (or the Anarchist equivalents) was actually used quite heavily to sue corporations in the past when their pesticides or factories caused harm to farmers. In fact, there was one case where an entire factory that employed over 2,000 people had to be closed down until they fixed their pollution issues because they caused about $100 in damages to a farmer's cattle. Current EPA regulations (which people try to associate with Capitalism even though it's anything but- Capitalism is more tied to common law) made it so that judges no longer use common law to determine harm, but instead rely on the ideas of "was the company following EPA standards?"

>>12583

I can imagine.

>>12581

I'll read through this and get back to you. Hopefully >>12584 >>12586

made sense.

Voluntarists and Lefties had more in common than people like to give credit before the USSR fucked it all up with propaganda (hell, many Libertarians used to be lefties), turning a good chunk of lefty intellectuals into shitheads who didn't understand anything.

>>12581

Alright, I haven't gone through the first source, but I'm reading through the second one and will try to respond as I go along. Would you like to move this over to the other thread or keep it here?

Walter Benjamin's first assumption is that Capitalism is a religious cult founded through utilitarianism.

I would like to point out that many capitalists and especially many Libertarians, view utilitarianism in very poor lighting as it's used an excuse for all sorts of atrocities related to government. Libertarians and their allies believe that Capitalism is simply one of the better systems of defined property rights that allow a spontaneous order to pull people out of poverty via mutually beneficial transactions.

At this time I think it's important to specify that not all forms of Capitalism are Free Markets (crony capitalism is a clear indication of this). However, all Free Markets contain Capitalism, as otherwise they would not be Free Markets in the first place using the definitions of Capitalism and Free Market employed by Libertarians.

I'm not quite sure what Mr. Benjamin means by his second assertion.

Does he mean that Capitalists believe that it is everlasting? Because this is false, not even the founding fathers believe this.

Or does he mean it's celebrated throughout the week rather than on a specific day? Because there are many things people celebrate on a daily basis.

His third assumption is that Capitalists give rise to blame and refuses to repent? Perhaps I'm not following along properly. Libertarians may play the blame game, but our ideologies and methodologies focus on how our system works rather than blaming other systems for their failures. If anything, this is one of the most frustrating parts of being a Libertarian- other ideologies constantly shit on it without addressing the claims made against them (Nationalists are especially bad about pointing out flaws in other systems instead of defining their own system).

His fourth assumption is that god must be concealed, to which I assume he means "the god of capitalism" or "the invisible hand" as many like to call it. I would argue that some Libertarians are just piss-poor at explaining their ideology and use the "invisible hand" as a shortcut when talking with fellow Libertarians. Spontaneous order is an entire lesson in its own right, but it does have a basis in its moral/ethical philosophy regarding governmental intervention, man in his natural state, etc. I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better word choice than "invisible hand" or "spontaneous order" simply because there is no word to properly describe mutually beneficial transactions and exchange of goods/services in a market setting leading to growing wealth. Keep in mind wealth is a more broad term than money. If I buy a pizza at $12, it's obvious I value the pizza more than my $12 (and the pizzeria values the money more than their pizza), thus while I might not be richer, I've become wealthier due to that transaction. This is why I tell the guy handing me a pizza "thank you."

Anyways, lets continue reading…

>>12587

I'll be honest, I'm finding accusations in this piece past those four assumptions with only nods to certain philosophers. It seems to me that Walter Benjamin is making more of an assumption that any sort of ideology will become a cult. I need to study my Russian, but I'll come back to that first source when I get the chance in the next day or so. Please bare with me since /liberty/ is a slow board and these sorts of things can't be responded to quickly.

>>12525

>How in the ever living fuck surplus value doesn't exist?

It does not exist in the marxist sense, you shithead! You can say that a chair is worth more than the sum of its parts. In that sense, yes, building a chair creates a surplus value, if we disregard the fact that value is subjective and that someone, somewhere may be willing to pay you for the wood, but not the chair. However, there is no magical "surplus value" big bad Porky extracts from his workers.

>>12528

>The bourgeois don't exist

Nope, we're not strictly divided into two classes anymore, you fucking moron.

>If you try hard enough we all can be millionaires

I never said that.

>They might not be perfect but they worked harder than everyone to get there

I never said that. In fact, I called them "pieces of shit". I have some sympathies for Warren Buffet, but I'm pretty sure even he will be a shithead

>surplus value doesnt exist

As value is subjective, it doesn't.

>>12542

HOLY FUCK!

Just got here and I gotta say, /leftypol/ got btfo.

I really didn't think the socialist argument was essentially accusing others of being Porky and Porky posting. What a bunch of fucking crybabys.

>>12596

I see what you did there.

>>12554

>implying there is no state capitalism

Thanks for telling us about crony capitalism. Not like we ancaps have been bitching about this since the day we became ancaps.

>>12555

>They are. That's the /leftypol/ flag poster.

You really fucked up when the BO outs you as a samefag.

>>12601

Way to read only the part of the quote that seems to agree with you:

>if we disregard the fact that value is subjective and that someone, somewhere may be willing to pay you for the wood, but not the chair. However, there is no magical "surplus value" big bad Porky extracts from his workers.

As for the latter sentence: This is just a consequence of the labor theory of value being shite.

>>12603

>u-ur argument is stupid!

So is yours. And you're stupid, too.

>>12604

>no u

>>12604

>no u

>>12598

>>12604

There is no such thing as "crony" capitalism, you dunce. It's just capitalism.

>>12646

>There is no such thing as "crony" capitalism, you dunce. It's just capitalism.

So subsidies, discrimination in favor of the rich, lobbyism and all that fancy stuff simply doesn't exist? Shit, why didn't someone tell me before?

>>12223

>>12238

>>12239

>>12240

>>12241

>>12242

>>12243

>>12247

>>12248

>>12250

>>12251

>>12253

>>12254

>>12255

>>12257

>>12259

>>12261

>>12267

>>12268

>>12274

>>12275

>>12276

>>12278

>>12281

>>12282

>>12284

>>12286

>>12287

>>12291

>>12293

>>12294

>>12296

>>12298

>>12300

>>12301

>>12304

>>12306

>>12310

>>12312

>>12316

>>12318

>>12319

>>12320

>>12324

>>12326

>>12328

>>12330

>>12335

>>12336

>>12338

>>12342

>>12344

>>12346

>>12347

>>12349

>>12350

>>12351

>>12356

>>12358

>>12359

>>12362

>>12365

>>12371

>>12374

>>12377

>>12379

>>12380

>>12381

>>12383

>>12384

>>12386

>>12389

>>12402

>>12405

>>12406

>>12409

>>12412

>>12414

>>12415

>>12418

>>12422

>>12424

>>12439

>>12440

>>12449

>>12457

>>12462

>>12465

>>12468

>>12470

>>12476

>>12477

>>12479

>>12483

>>12485

>>12486

>>12490

>>12496

>>12499

>>12523

>>12528

>>12540

>>12542

>>12563

>>12579

>>12581

>>12583

>>12597

>>12646

This whole argument can be destroyed by the simple old adage "work first, play later".

For those of you with your heads too far up socialism's ass to understand what that means, it means that you need to take care of life's necessities before you can spend time on things that you enjoy. This is one of the simplest rules of life. If you don't believe me, go out into the wilderness, try and survive for a week while only doing "what you want to do" rather than "what you must do".

The thing is these "market worshipers" want to have free time just as much as any socialist. In order to have free time, you must be able to reliably generate some amount of excess resources to live off of while doing what you want. It's no secret that free market systems, when run fairly, are the most efficient at creating excess wealth for all those who are involved with it. More excess wealth = less time you need to spend at work = more time to do whatever it is that you want to do.

By virtue of the fact that you've got enough time to sit here and shitpost on an imageboard for a few hours every day for the last three days tells me that the market system is operating very well, and the only thing that can be blamed for any lack of time to pursue more desirable activities than work is you. Nice job dumb-ass, volume of your own posts is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

>>12607

It's too late, red. We're outsourcing the shitposting to OP, he does it faster and produces higher-quality shit. It's nothing personal, that's just how the market works.

nothing wrong with the market if property ownership is egalitarian

workers cooperatives competing on a free market is the way to go friends

>>12665

true

I firmly believe in doing the necessary labour that is asked of me and then having plenty of time off for my own personal pursuits. It's what these damned socialists don't understand, they never think about establishing workplace democracy, and fixing wages and work times so that workers get paid more in less time, and with more employment dont have to slave away for 10 hours a day, unless they want to, because thats what they choose. But no, all these damned socialists can think about is black dicks and, with the proper aid from the jewish community, how to maximise efficiency of black dicks getting inside their women. I just dont understand these leftist idiots obsession with black dicks, like wtf, stop talking about your fetish and get on to the real issues, guys.

>>12655

How is a system in which someone is owning a gigantic corporation, controlling every single worker in it, and extracting profit from them, not in favor of the owners of these corporations?