/liberty/ - Liberty

>>14279

>c4ss

No thank you.

>>14286

Seconding this. Guess that's ancap-flagfags christmas present for us

>>14284

> the actual definition of capitalism is necessarily equivalent to free markets.

You can redefine the words and post meaningless quotes all day, it won't change the fact that capitalism is not the same as free markets. Every politically literate person (I guess other than ancaps, who chose to redefine capitalism to mean free market) will agree with this. The point of the article is that a truly free market and capitalism (in the non-ancap sense) are mutually exclusive, so ancaps shouldn't be considered as capitalists by others.

Honestly, take a look at any of your posts or this whole board. Every time someone talks about capitalism you start claiming that it's not capitalism (or not "true" capitalism), and and half of the time someone talks about something that's not capitalism, you start claiming that it is actually capitalism. Are you really this blind?

Why do you faggots love the word "capitalism" so much, anyway? It's pretty clear you don't want what it means to any outsider, and it just confuses and alienates potential allies, while your enemies can easily exploit it (and already do it all the time). Just call yourself a market anarchist and join your true comrades in our fight for liberty.

>>14288

I'm fine with calling myself a Free Market Anarchist, although it lacks the ring of Anarchocapitalist.

Anyway, the word "capitalism" has a shitton of possible definitions. The presence of a free market; an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; an economic system fueled by the striving for the accumulation of capital… these are just some of the dictionary-definitions, used by people who (hopefully) know what they're talking about. Most people use the term even more vaguely, if that's at all possible.

With a term that vague and undefined in its usage, arguing about its proper definition is futile. I will not concede that libertarians are redefining the term "capitalism", therefore. That we should stop using it, though? You're right about that.

>>14284

that pic gave me cancerism

>>14284

>Yes, the actual definition of capitalism is necessarily equivalent to free markets. There's nothing circular about it. If anarchist, then capitalist. If capitalist, then anarchist.

Categorically false. To have excess wealth is to have power, and to have power is to have power over others, and to have power over others, well, that is antithetical to freedom. I'm not an anarco-kiddie, but this is a legitimate argument.

>No; it's something that a group that calls themselves the state claims is their private property by virtue of their claim of legislative capacity. It isn't really their property any more than any other stolen goods belong to the thief.

Rationale people do not wish to live in a society where there is no state to protect their rights and liberties. They are willing to engage in a social contract for that to happen.

>The idea is that without any special legal privileges to force people to comply with your rules, market forces will generally disperse wealth (though the natural differences between individuals will still lead to non-homogenous distribution). This dispersion of wealth makes the formation of coercive power structures utterly unfeasible.

Without a state, people can easily take capital by force. In fact, capitalism only works with a state. The rules of capitalism, whereby money has exchange value, would disappear without a state, and since there would be no money, as money is printed by a state, all value would come from utility value. That would not be capitalism as we know it. Also, I fail to see how that prevents "coercive power structures" a farmer who grows a valuable plant could convince goons to steal and bully others for his own gain in exchange for the valuable plant.

>"Wage slavery" is nonsense. If you agree to work for a wage, you are not a slave. Voluntary arrangements are not slavery.

If you are in a job that gives you a wage, that without which, you could not survive, and you could not leave that job, for if you did you would die since you would not have the money for food, is that not slavery?

>True, but the marginal cost to defend drops. There's kind of a balancing act, based on the wealth that property generates, which leads to a sort of equilibrium size of wealth accumulation, with forces differing in each case.

If the value of a good rises more than value put into the force that protects those goods, then there will be an incentive to steal those goods. What do you say to the farmer that has grown a crop that is ever increasing in value thanks to many other farmers having a crop failure, and that he cannot pay for a greater force to protect his farm since he hasn't sold the crop yet and can't until it matures?

>Pretty much true. That's why one guy isn't going to get enough wealth to "become a warlord and take over". This is arguing in favor of AnCap at this point.

Except its not, if people can freely associate, non-anarchists can freely associate into a group, that while not profitable, is willing to work together regardless, in order to exert force over others and exploit others.

>>14292

Oh, milo, I didn't know you were anarco kiddie.

But seriously, what power does wealth not give you?

>>14292

Reminder traps are gay

>>14294

Hmm, is that a trap in the pic?

Also, if traps are gay, then you can count me as bi, because I'd definitely tap a nice trap ass.

>>14288

are you

>>14272

If yes, then you are quite possibly retarded

If no (that is, you're lying) then you're quite possibly retarded.

>If you are in a job that gives you a wage, that without which, you could not survive, and you could not leave that job, for if you did you would die since you would not have the money for food, is that not slavery?

If I die without food, then food is exploiting ME!!

lol wtf

>If the value of a good rises more than value put into the force that protects those goods, then there will be an incentive to steal those goods. What do you say to the farmer that has grown a crop that is ever increasing in value thanks to many other farmers having a crop failure, and that he cannot pay for a greater force to protect his farm since he hasn't sold the crop yet and can't until it matures?

keks have to be had

>Except its not, if people can freely associate, non-anarchists can freely associate into a group, that while not profitable, is willing to work together regardless, in order to exert force over others and exploit others

Actually agree.

>>14288

>You can redefine the words [blah blah blah]….

Check the dictionary, friend (image in this post):

>>14075

>>14291

>To have excess wealth is to have power

Define "excess".

Define "power".

Establish how these definitions are relevant and refer to bad things.

>Rationale people do not wish to live in a society where there is no state to protect their rights and liberties.

Why should they want specifically a state, given their terrible track records? Why not some other sort of institution?

>They are willing to engage in a social contract for that to happen.

The "social contract" is not really a contract, and is thus not binding. It's an arrangement imposed upon individuals based on the false presumption of their consent. It is wholly undefined, and lacks the necessary components to satisfy the definition of a contract.

>Without a state, people can easily take capital by force. In fact, capitalism only works with a state.

Prove that only a state can protect people's capital.

>The rules of capitalism, whereby money has exchange value, would disappear without a state, and since there would be no money, as money is printed by a state, all value would come from utility value.

So, do you mean to tell me that you are openly admitting to the belief that money has never existed without a state? You're actually willing to come out in front of everybody and say that no community ever had a common liquid commodity until a state decreed it so? Aren't you just a little embarrassed?

Like, don't you want to at least pretend to have some idea of how economies work? Like, at all?

>If you are in a job …[bullshit conditions that just plain don't happen]… is that not slavery?

At least in a free market, there is always the possibility of self-employment. It's just that working for other people tends to be more efficient. The options are never this job or death. That's utterly preposterous.

>If the value of a good rises more than value put into the force that protects those goods

Well, the Law of Decreasing Marginal Utility shows that at least after some point, it necessarily doesn't. The cost to defend increases linearly, whereas the value of each unit of property approaches diminishing returns. Every time.

> What do you say to the farmer… that he cannot pay for a greater force to protect his farm since he hasn't sold the crop yet and can't until it matures?

Have you never heard of a stock market? Or a securitized bond? Or a loan? Or savings? Or a deferred payment contract? Or any of countless possible financial instruments cooked up by market actors rather than government legislators?

>non-anarchists can freely associate into a group, that while not profitable, is willing to work together regardless, in order to exert force over others and exploit others.

>while not profitable

You're missing the part where this association is losing real physical resources by engaging in this violence. The economic inefficiency of this behavior makes it unsustainable, especially in comparison to the profitable defensive institutions which oppose them.

>>14290

>>14296

You can bitch about it all you like, but you're arguing against logical consistency, economics, history, everybody who isn't on your side of the political spectrum, and (as I've mentioned) the goddamned dictionary.

You're wrong. Like, it's not even a difference of opinion. It's not even an alternative perspective. You're just. Plain. Wrong.

And judging by this thread, everybody but you knows it.

>>14291

>Categorically false. To have excess wealth is to have power, and to have power is to have power over others, and to have power over others, well, that is antithetical to freedom.

To be strong is to have power, and to have power is to have power over others, and to have power over others, well, that is antithetical to freedom. Let's ban all gyms! My point being, you can't ban all forms of influence over your fellow human beings, so why pick out a particular source of non-coercive influence and call it antithetical to freedom?

>Rationale people do not wish to live in a society where there is no state to protect their rights and liberties. They are willing to engage in a social contract for that to happen.

Can you name any historical precedents?

>Without a state, people can easily take capital by force.

That's what protection agreements are for. You don't want armed robbers to take away your factory machines? Hire armed guards. I also have the feeling that you assume laws cannot exist without a state. That is completely wrong; rules are treated like laws because people regard them as laws, not because the state does so. The influence of the state on what is a law in the mind of the people is an indirect one.

>The rules of capitalism, whereby money has exchange value, would disappear without a state, and since there would be no money, as money is printed by a state, all value would come from utility value. That would not be capitalism as we know it.

Bitcoins much?

>Also, I fail to see how that prevents "coercive power structures" a farmer who grows a valuable plant could convince goons to steal and bully others for his own gain in exchange for the valuable plant.

He could do that, yes, if he was a complete asshole, unafraid of retributions and the deal in question was acutally beneficial for him and not a waste of time. The difference is, under the state, he could legally do that.

>If you are in a job that gives you a wage, that without which, you could not survive, and you could not leave that job, for if you did you would die since you would not have the money for food, is that not slavery?

No, it isn't, and this scenario is extremely artificial. You're assuming that a) the person in question has only this one job he can work, b) he has no access to private charity, at all and c) he has no relatives or friends that can feed him. The ancap-flagfag already described that real wages and job opportunities would go up, though, so none of your assumptions are realistical.

Even if that unlikely scenario happened, though, that wouldn't be slavery. Slavery would be to force someone else to work for another person, and that is the only solution to the dilemma you propose. When no force is involved, except that of outside circumstances, then you don't have slavery, or else we'd all be enslaved if we had to go back into our houses during a hurricane.

>>14291

>>14314

>Cont'd

>If the value of a good rises more than value put into the force that protects those goods, then there will be an incentive to steal those goods.

This is not how crime works. Some people have a completely botched perception of risk and benefit. Ask any juvenile delinquent who stole 50 $ from a liquor store. Few of us would say that the risk of being jailed for a year and shaming your family is worth 50 $, and yet, imbeciles constantly commit petty robbery. Meanwhile, other people actually adhere to the law, even when that isn't beneficial for them at all. There are different models on when crime is committed, and few of them put that heavy an influence on the economic rationality of committing crime.

>What do you say to the farmer that has grown a crop that is ever increasing in value thanks to many other farmers having a crop failure, and that he cannot pay for a greater force to protect his farm since he hasn't sold the crop yet and can't until it matures?

That he should get himself a gun so he can protect his own property, for one, and that this isn't Somalia so he doesn't have to expect armed robbery at every turn.

>Except its not, if people can freely associate, non-anarchists can freely associate into a group, that while not profitable, is willing to work together regardless, in order to exert force over others and exploit others.

Again, models on crime. They can do that, true. Practically, that would entail a loss of social contacts, their job and their security (as exploiting others is a dangerous business, especially if you can't outsource it to someone else), and few people actually want that. The ones who do tend to be the disorganized and impulsive types, i.e. the last people to run a business successfully. Sure you'll have a few Escobars, but we have that even today, and these tend to work in businesses like the drug trade for a reason, namely that petty violence simply isn't that profitable, except on the very largest scale. Getting on that large scale is pretty damn fucking hard with an armed populace that hates tyrants with a passion (in any anarchocapitalist nation, "the tyrant" would be the epitome of evil).

>>14305

>You can bitch about it all you like, but you're arguing against logical consistency, economics, history, everybody who isn't on your side of the political spectrum, and (as I've mentioned) the goddamned dictionary.

>You're wrong. Like, it's not even a difference of opinion. It's not even an alternative perspective. You're just. Plain. Wrong.

>And judging by this thread, everybody but you knows it.

>>14316

That video have me cancer.

>>14301

Perhaps in an economy run on utility based value, but, in the capitalist economies we live where things are based in exchange value through a shared currency. If you have currency, then you can use wealth for pretty much anything. You can better your life, bully others, do whatever you want, that's power.

>>14300

>If I die without food, then food is exploiting ME!!

How is that in anyway what I said?

>keks have to be had

asshole.

>>14305

>Define "excess".

Excess as in more than is necessary to sustain yourself, I couldn't think of a better word at the time of writing.

>Define "power".

Power to manipulate others into doing what you want.

>Establish how these definitions are relevant and refer to bad things.

They aren't inherently bad, but I figured as an anarchist, you wouldn't like them. After all, if there is power, there is authority.

>Why should they want specifically a state, given their terrible track records? Why not some other sort of institution?

Why would they want capitalism, given its horrible track record? At least states give them public infrastructure, less violence (in good ones), safety, and oftentimes healthcare among other things. It's only when states are responsive and held accountable that this happens though, so I should say liberal (in the classical sense) and democratic states.

>Prove that only a state can protect people's capital.

I don't want to, at least with a state, there exists a mechanism to redistribute what capital has been exploited

>>14305

Sorry, forgot to finish.

>So, do you mean to tell me that you are openly admitting to the belief that money has never existed without a state? You're actually willing to come out in front of everybody and say that no community ever had a common liquid commodity until a state decreed it so? Aren't you just a little embarrassed?

Only states can have money, yes, a common liquid commodity isn't the same thing. That too, is based on utility value.

>At least in a free market, there is always the possibility of self-employment. It's just that working for other people tends to be more efficient. The options are never this job or death. That's utterly preposterous.

That's bullshit and you know it. This conditions happened all the time during the industrial revolution. If you live in a city, you cannot farm efficiently, and often times, yes, the options were either work or death. A capitalist economy necessarily creates the conditions for mass unemployment and poverty. For people in poverty, without a state, the choice will be work or death. And that is slavery.

>Have you never heard of a stock market? Or a securitized bond? Or a loan? Or savings? Or a deferred payment contract? Or any of countless possible financial instruments cooked up by market actors rather than government legislators?

All of those things are only possible in a economy with a currency based on exchange value, not to mention, without the laws of a state, I wouldn't trust giving my wealth to a bank, especially if my money isn't guaranteed like it is now.

>You're missing the part where this association is losing real physical resources by engaging in this violence. The economic inefficiency of this behavior makes it unsustainable, especially in comparison to the profitable defensive institutions which oppose them.

Perhaps it's not profitable in the short term, but once you have enough resources, you can make pretty much anything profitable.

>>14306

I hope you realize that you are acting like a literal child. And you have not proven nor argued anything effectively.

>>14319

>I NEVER SAID THAT

A job is not a right. Being alive is not a right. When you make it, you enslave others to your own life, whether they want it or not (that is, as long as the law is upheld and /or they are citizens of the country)

GET CUCKED LEFTY

>>14314

> My point being, you can't ban all forms of influence over your fellow human beings, so why pick out a particular source of non-coercive influence and call it antithetical to freedom?

Then why ban states? At least with states, everyone has a little power over the state.

>Can you name any historical precedents?

The united states of america.

>That's what protection agreements are for. You don't want armed robbers to take away your factory machines? Hire armed guards. I also have the feeling that you assume laws cannot exist without a state. That is completely wrong; rules are treated like laws because people regard them as laws, not because the state does so. The influence of the state on what is a law in the mind of the people is an indirect one.

Then why not even have a state? A state at least must yield to the value's of humans. If you just base rules about what is profitable, (which people will do, and will have to do, if they want to make it in a world like this) then you leave no considerations for virtue in society.

>Bitcoins much?

If bitcoins were a more widely accepted currency, I'd imagine more people would be making them, and then you'd easily have hyperinflation on your hands if you just let all manner of private individuals printing money.

>He could do that, yes, if he was a complete asshole, unafraid of retributions and the deal in question was acutally beneficial for him and not a waste of time.

That's true under a state as well.

>The difference is, under the state, he could legally do that.

That's false. Extortion is illegal. Not to mention, they could have a civil suit against them.

>No, it isn't, and this scenario is extremely artificial. You're assuming that a) the person in question has only this one job he can work

>implying monopolies won't exist

Also, this is exactly the kind of situation that happened during the industrial revolution under laissez faire government policies. The only reason they'd be working such a piss poor job in the first place is because they couldn't get a better one. So even if they could leave, they have no reason to.

b) he has no access to private charity

No charity can eliminate poverty or starvation. And that is what is necessary to prevent this situation from happening.

and c) he has no relatives or friends that can feed him.

Who are probably doing just as bad as him.

>The ancap-flagfag already described that real wages and job opportunities would go up, though, so none of your assumptions are realistical.

Why? Under your precious ancap "utopia" you wouldn't have a minimum wage, and you would have eliminated all the jobs in the public sector.

>Even if that unlikely scenario happened, though, that wouldn't be slavery.

And it did.

> Slavery would be to force someone else to work for another person, and that is the only solution to the dilemma you propose. When no force is involved, except that of outside circumstances, then you don't have slavery, or else we'd all be enslaved if we had to go back into our houses during a hurricane.

You can't be a slave to nature, only to others. If you are doing this to someone, that person would be your slave, they would have to do everything you told them to or else they would die.

>>14323

Why don't you go make a society based around those ideals, m8, tell me how it works out for you.

>>14315

>This is not how crime works.

Most crime is done because there is a perceived benefit and because they assume they will get away with it.

>That he should get himself a gun so he can protect his own property, for one, and that this isn't Somalia so he doesn't have to expect armed robbery at every turn.

You do realize that several places in somalia can effectively be considered anarachy thanks to the lack of a state presence?

>. Practically, that would entail a loss of social contacts, their job and their security

You can't have social contracts without states. And they probably didn't have much security to begin with. And that'd probably be their job, if this is the case.

> Getting on that large scale is pretty damn fucking hard with an armed populace that hates tyrants with a passion (in any anarchocapitalist nation, "the tyrant" would be the epitome of evil).

lol, corporations do way more damage than any state in the first world.

>>14320

>le money lets me do shit

>le I'll just assume errything is bad

>le just assume nobody can retaliate

>le world is out to get me

>le everyone is le evil and need to be killed

',:^>

really, FBI? Really?

>bad track record of capitalism

>BAD

You owe your post and electricity to capitalism, commie. Errything would've been annihilated if shit had been your way

>le exploited capital meme

LOOK AND LAUGH

Can you read, commie-baby? Read these words I spell

C O M M I E S A R E E V I L

>>14321

>That's bullshit and you know it. This conditions happened all the time during the industrial revolution. If you live in a city, you cannot farm efficiently, and often times, yes, the options were either work or death. A capitalist economy necessarily creates the conditions for mass unemployment and poverty. For people in poverty, without a state, the choice will be work or death. And that is slavery.

Implying there's ever been a true free market.

I'll tell you that the US at that time was highly capitalist, and the job opportunities were ENORMOUS. You have to be literally blind (or a decieving commie) to say capitalism is the root of death. No.

>upholding your own life is slavery

nice. Always great to see a self-reliant trap

>le example is farming in city

Sure thing, the people in your imaginary scenario will die, and it'll be their fault. If someone in a purely capitalist society stabs himself, and then blames the state, it's BS, but it flies with commies.

lrn 2 work

>without the laws of a state, I wouldn't trust giving my wealth to a bank, especially if my money isn't guaranteed like it is now.

agree

>Perhaps it's not profitable in the short term, but once you have enough resources, you can make pretty much anything profitable.

the problem is resources don't come from thin air. People need to work to make them.

>>14325

"Right" as in rights enforced by a state. The state does not have a right to uphold your life, you do, but it will oppose the aggressing party if the laws allow it. When the opposing party is your own self, then the fovernment can not do anything. It DOES NOT guarantee free money, because you might not have any.

I'm not an AnCap. I believe a small government with very rigidly set moral laws is required for true lasseiz-faire capitalism and property and personal rights. Not a minarchist, not religious,

>>14327

change the "small" government with limited

>>14327

>>14328

Also, I'd like it if a commie can give the necessity of forcing people to "donate" money to the Government.

Tell me why Altruism is good.

>>14330

>Capitalism has never been tried

Capitalism without government intervention

>long working hours and shit

Then leave your job and start up something else. You don't have to work in a mill or shit, open up your own place. Plus, people will obviously work at places where they get momey equivalent to their work. If a company exploits people, it is prone to being shut down if another one with less working hours and acceptable conditions opens.

And anyone could do that.

>le automation meme

and those require men behind them, and people who make those machines, and people who service them.nPlus, it all rests on whatever fragment of capitalism we have now, so being a commie requires a capitalist base. Commies can't do anything on their own.

>You don't get to make that decision

yes, but if a decision is met, that doesn't make it correct.

>no objective good or bad

lol

>>14324

>Then why ban states? At least with states, everyone has a little power over the state.

This is untrue. Only the majority and people with political influence hold power over it. More importantly, their power is a coercive one. To exercise it is to assume ownership over somebody else.

>The united states of america.

The US was never not statist. It merely switched from a colony to an autonomous state, but it was never anarchistic.

>Then why not even have a state? A state at least must yield to the value's of humans. If you just base rules about what is profitable, (which people will do, and will have to do, if they want to make it in a world like this) then you leave no considerations for virtue in society.

Do they not have to do this in our world? In a world without taxes, you can at least sit back, live your own life, produce just as much as you need to pay for your food, and call it a day. In a state, 20 to 30% of what you produce goes to the state.

>If bitcoins were a more widely accepted currency, I'd imagine more people would be making them, and then you'd easily have hyperinflation on your hands if you just let all manner of private individuals printing money.

Not if printing money carries less benefit than either working for it or exchanging it for a more stable currency. That would be the case in a free market for currencies.

>That's true under a state as well.

So, what is the benefit of the state?

>That's false. Extortion is illegal. Not to mention, they could have a civil suit against them.

Not if you call it eminent domain or taxation.

>implying monopolies won't exist

Name one monopoly that wasn't caused by the action of government. Standard Oil was no monopoly.

>Also, this is exactly the kind of situation that happened during the industrial revolution under laissez faire government policies.

You mean the laissez-faire policies where the national guard would intervene on behalf of the capitalists when things got sour, and the state courts did jackshit to help the workers? Even then, I'm not sure how bad it really was. I've heard that company towns where some of the nicest places to be in.

>No charity can eliminate poverty or starvation.

Why not?

>Who are probably doing just as bad as him.

Why, if real wages would rise?

>Why? Under your precious ancap "utopia" you wouldn't have a minimum wage, and you would have eliminated all the jobs in the public sector.

Because - as even the article in the OP admitted - companies would have to compete for their workers, not the other way around. They'd start giving better and better offers to potential employees, and the employees would take the best offer they could get. Even now, mandated minimum wages are often just a few cents higher than real minimum wages.

>You can't be a slave to nature, only to others. If you are doing this to someone, that person would be your slave, they would have to do everything you told them to or else they would die.

Fate is not set in stone. People don't just spontaneously die once you fire them. As an employer, you don't have the choice between "hire him" and "let him die". No matter how hard you pretend otherwise, your example is still artificial. Most of these sob stories liberals come up with are artificial scenarios, with no basis in reality.

Libertarians oppose forced labor in all its forms. They also differentiate between positive and negative freedom. Are you familiar with this? Because if you're not, then I'll have to explain the basics of the ideology to you, and I'd rather not do that in vain.

>>14325

You're a funny guy. Opting out is illegal. People have tried, and the government has not allowed it. We'd happily experiment if statists would let us.

>>14330

also read the last sentence of this post

>>14327 (me)

>>14326

>Most crime is done because there is a perceived benefit and because they assume they will get away with it.

That's a blanket statement, and it's only half-correct. Few criminals act on a rational economic calculation. Few law-abiding citizens act on a rational economic calculation when they decide not to become criminal.

>You do realize that several places in somalia can effectively be considered anarachy thanks to the lack of a state presence?

You mean the places that are ruled over by warlords, where no one has ever heard of the non-aggression principle? That's hardly anarchy. It's still a lot nicer than it was under the dictatorship.

>You can't have social contracts without states.

I said social CONTACTS, not social CONTRACTS.

>And they probably didn't have much security to begin with.

That's an unbased assumption. Maybe even a circular one. You're assuming everyone would become a warlord, therefore, no one would have a secure life, therefore, everyone would become a warlord.

>And that'd probably be their job, if this is the case.

I have the feeling you assume there would be no jobs around. This has been proven untrue. Most people would be employed, and these employed wouldn't want to lose their job, as they are familiar with it, maybe even feel at home there. Leaves us with the people who never had an employment before turning to crime and the ones that somehow have no problem with throwing their former life away for a few extra dollars, and these are exactly the groups that are high-risk, anyway, with or without a state.

>>14331

>Capitalism without government intervention

Oh like that'd be any better.

>Then leave your job and start up something else.

That requires surplus capital, something that not everybody has. And that many people didn't have back then.

>and those require men behind them, and people who make those machines, and people who service them.nPlus, it all rests on whatever fragment of capitalism we have now, so being a commie requires a capitalist base. Commies can't do anything on their own.

It's entirely possible that communism is only possible in a post-scarcity society. That's why I'm a democratic socialist, not a communist.

>yes, but if a decision is met, that doesn't make it correct.

Well of course, if I thought the status quo was great I wouldn't be a socialist. But, the bigger issue is that you'll never convince people to give up states, and you don't have a right to take them away from people and society at large.

>lol

like I said, you can believe in states with utilitarian ethics if you want. But you can't say that the only good thing in this world are rights. If you think you can, please explain how.

>>14335

>Oh like that'd be any better.

strawman

>That requires surplus capital, something that not everybody has. And that many people didn't have back then.

What are loans

>like I said, you can believe in states with utilitarian ethics if you want. But you can't say that the only good thing in this world are rights. If you think you can, please explain how.

"rights" in which context?

btw I'm not an AnCap

>>14334

>Few criminals act on a rational economic calculation.

I said perceived benefit.

> Few law-abiding citizens act on a rational economic calculation when they decide not to become criminal.

So then no one's acting rationally?

>You mean the places that are ruled over by warlords, where no one has ever heard of the non-aggression principle?

>muh nap

Yeah, good luck getting people to respect that

>It's still a lot nicer than it was under the dictatorship.

top kek

>You're assuming everyone would become a warlord, therefore, no one would have a secure life, therefore, everyone would become a warlord.

No I mean there'd be more crime and violence thanks to the state no longer having a monopoly on violence.

>I have the feeling you assume there would be no jobs around.

No I mean they'd just choose that job due to ideology or some spook or something.

>Most people would be employed

Capitalism ensures unemployment, see earlier.

> Leaves us with the people who never had an employment before turning to crime and the ones that somehow have no problem with throwing their former life away for a few extra dollars,

What crime if there's no laws to break?

>>14339

>strawman

How? I didn't even give an example.

>What are loans

what a wonderful system where you have to take out loans to ensure you don't get the shit beaten out of you and your property stolen.

>"rights" in which context?

whatever context you want

>>14341

>lolbertarians

sure thing, nitpick arguments from the internet and say all libertarians are autistic, instead of arguing their points.

Btw, I'm not a libertarian. Never said I was.

>anarchists screwing things up for others

the people who bring value to the world and keep the world running aren't commies.

>disdain for your fellow man

>fellow

>FELLOW

Implying I owe anyone shit, or good behaviour. Again, this verges on altruism, which you avoided defining.

>power of capital is coercive

only without a state

lol I shouldn't be replying, I'm not 14332

>>14342

>Capitalism ensures unemplyoment

akin to saying the presence of food ensures starvation

not AnCap

>>14343

>How? I didn't even give an example.

That's what a strawman is

A statement without anything to back it up, or a statement with context-dropping.

>what a wonderful system where you have to take out loans to ensure you don't get the shit beaten out of you and your property stolen.

Where did force come into this? Don't move goalposts.

Commie caring about property

whaaaaaat

>whatever context you want

don't expect an answer then

I won't tell you the question, but you need to answer

This is what you're saying.

>>14343

Also tell me which (movement?) ideology you follow. It'll be easier.

>A statement without anything to back it up, or a statement with context-dropping.

…no it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>Where did force come into this?

The original example.

>Commie caring about property

I'm not a commie. But leftists in general care about personal property, just not private property.

>I won't tell you the question, but you need to answer

>This is what you're saying.

I'm giving you the leeway to use whatever argument you want. I could just say natural rights if that'll get you to stop being so pedanic. In general, I was saying that rights aren't the only thing important in the world.

>>14346

I said earlier I was a democratic socialist, since communism isn't feasible with current material conditions. I'll put on the leftypol flag so you can identify me easier.

>>14347

>wikipedia entry

all right, then it was a statement without anything to back it up, and not a strawman.

>original example

elaborate

>>14348

okay

>>14344

>Btw, I'm not a libertarian. Never said I was.

Well you said you weren't an ancap earlier. So I assumed since you're a liberty poster that's the other alternative.

>the people who bring value to the world and keep the world running aren't commies.

Workers bring value to the world.

>Implying I owe anyone shit, or good behaviour

this is why we don't want people like you determining our societal system

>Again, this verges on altruism, which you avoided defining.

You didn't ask me to. I'll refer to the dictionary. either definition can work. https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=altruism%20definition&oq=altrui&aqs=chrome.3.0j69i57j0l4.4511j1j4

>akin to saying the presence of food ensures starvation

that is a false analogy. You can be unemployed without capitalism. You could be a beggar in a fuedal serf.

>>14351

>Workers bring value to the world.

yeah, and I said the ones that know how to work well aren't generally commies

>this is why we don't want people like you determining our societal system

why

>You didn't ask me to. I'll refer to the dictionary. either definition can work.

Lol, sorry, I don't need the definition only, but also why it is necessary, with the definition of altruism in the case you refer.

>that is a false analogy.

no

>You can be unemployed without capitalism. You could be a beggar in a fuedal serf.

yes

>>14353

>yeah, and I said the ones that know how to work well aren't generally commies

>implying the amount of work people do is directly related to how much money or value they make

Also, just because they're not communist doesn't mean they aren't some kind of leftist.

>why

Because you don't care about the good of society.

>Lol, sorry, I don't need the definition only, but also why it is necessary, with the definition of altruism in the case you refer.

For the good of society. We do better as a whole working together and helping one another. This more in the zoological definition, but it's true. From a utilitarian point of view, it is important because no one person's suffering is more important than any other persons. i.e. suffering is bad.

>no

>yes

pick one

>>14354

>doesn't mean they're leftist

democratic scocialsim and socialism is just communism with a few words thrown in. Basically the same shit.

>because you don't care about the good of society

why should I?

>For the good of society.

lol

> We do better as a whole working together and helping one another.

not without personal gain

>This more in the zoological definition, but it's true.

equivocating humans with animals

>From a utilitarian point of view, it is important because no one person's suffering is more important than any other persons.

getting a papercut is same as getting your arm sawed off

What you're proclaiming is Society>Individual, which is wrong. Now you'll ask me to disprove it, but I'll ask you to prove it first. And give me a non-BS argument for altruism, along with your definition of it, and no links.

>i.e. suffering is bad.

stop moving goalposts

>pick one

my analogy was right, but your example was wrong, and did not reference, or add, to the analogy in a way that disproves it. You never mentioned anything about jobs in a capitalist society, and said that in other forms of society you mentioned, jobs would not be guaranteed, which I agreed with.

>>14336

Ancapistan allows for voluntary hierarchy.

>inb4 commies try to say that voluntary hierarchy doesn't real

I'm not going to read all this shit

>>14357

why do you use a trip?

>>14320

>Excess as in more than is necessary to sustain yourself

So we've arbitrarily decided that self-sustenance is the threshold of excess? Hypocritical of you to be on the internet, then.

>Power to manipulate others into doing what you want.

You realize you just defined "power" with "power", right? That's not how this works. Also "manipulate"; do you mean that any form of influence whatsoever that might convince someone else to do something is "power"? Surely we shouldn't allow people to talk, then. After all, they might "manipulate" others into doing things for them, which is bad because reasons.

See, if somebody with money wants to "manipulate" me to get me to do what they want, that means they're offering me the money, and thereby transferring some of that "power" to me. Boy, that sure sounds horrible.

>After all, if there is power, there is authority.

By your definition, everybody has power/authority over everybody else. When everybody's super, nobody is.

>Why would they want capitalism, given its horrible track record?

You mean its horrible track record of lifting billions out of poverty, expanding opportunities, bringing about new technologies, supercharging quality of life, expanding safety and working conditions, increasing life expectancy, and being accountable to consumer preference?

>At least states give them public infrastructure, less violence (in good ones), safety, and oftentimes healthcare among other things.

It does all of those things worse than a market. There's no way a central planner can satisfy consumer demand better than a market can; that's fairly basic economics. "Less violence"? Not by a longshot. States kill their own citizens by the millions, even the supposed "good ones"; they just label them "criminals" first for doing shit that didn't hurt anybody.

>at least with a state, there exists a mechanism to redistribute what capital has been exploited

…into the pockets of the politically connected.

>>14321

>Only states can have money, yes, a common liquid commodity isn't the same thing.

You're confusing "fiat currency" with "money". Just open an economics book that isn't written in crayon.

>That too, is based on utility value.

No; it's based on subjective valuation, just like everything else. People include subjective utility functions into their considerations, but the "value" of money is an intersubjective agreement. Fiat currency, on the other hand (the shit issued by states) is purported to have value because .gov said so. Not money.

> but once you have enough resources, you can make pretty much anything profitable.

It's like you've never even heard the word "economics".

>>14366

>FTFY

Not if the state has no power over money flow

>>14367

If the state has no power over money flow, then the "power" of money is not coercive. The way you wrote it, it looked like you were saying that absent a state to control money, money is coercive, which sounds preposterous.

>>14342

>I said perceived benefit.

And that's a blanket statement, useless for making predictions. If you define cost-benefit-analysis broadly enough, EVERYTHING comes down to one, but the concept becomes inapplicable because you can't measure what one perceives as benefits or costs, or weight it against each other.

>So then no one's acting rationally?

This doesn't follow from what I said. What I said was that not every choice comes down to an economic calculation. In fact, not even economic choices come down to pure economic calculation, and not beause humans are irrational, but because maximizing their capital is NOT their only impulse.

>Yeah, good luck getting people to respect that

People have accepted absurder things as the law, and what they accept as the law is all that matters. The NAP is easily remembered, easily interpreted (except in fringe cases, but those exist with every law) and it is enforceable. Why, then shouldn't people follow it?

>No I mean there'd be more crime and violence thanks to the state no longer having a monopoly on violence.

The monopoly on force is an extremely broad, overarching rule, of little importance to the Average Joe. What matters to the average citizen are its components, like the prohibition of theft. This rule would exist in the absence of a state, and it would be applied more consequently, as nowadays, there is an exemption to it when the state says there is.

>No I mean they'd just choose that job due to ideology or some spook or something.

People would create an organization dedicated to initiating aggression, due to an ideology teaching that it is wrong to initiate aggression. Do I get this straight?

>Capitalism ensures unemployment, see earlier.

Can you be more specific? This thread is pretty big, and I can remember this argument had been debunked.

>What crime if there's no laws to break?

Anarchy is not lawlessness, and I already explained to you how what counts is not that the state declares something to be law, but that people accept it as law.

>>14341

>Most states have safeguards to prevent tyranny of the majority, as well as people with large political influence.

These don't work.

>I don't care. So is the power of capital.

Not according to the definition of coercion.

>well spooked my property

That's not an argument.

>I never claimed it was. You asked for a historical precedent for people forming a social contract with a state to protect their rights and such.

No one ever signed a contract with the United States, except maybe for the forefathers. The rest of the nation didn't consent to being ruled by the US government.

>What does that have to do with virtue? Sounds more like laziness and a disdain for your fellow man.

If you can spend your time doing nothing, you can spend time doing something. This is how libertarianism leaves room for virtue, and as virtue can't be enforced, this is everything a system could ever do.

>People would only have to think they could benefit from it, and they probably would in the short term. It wouldn't work for long.

People are not that stupid. They don't tend to buy what is needed to print money unless they think it will be beneficial in the long-term.

>implying capitalists in your ancap utopia couldn't do that.

They couldn't, unless they paid for it AND could get away with it. During the gilded age, they didn't have to pay for protection from the state, and they could get away with having armed men shoot down protesters, due to the state giving his okay.

>I highly doubt in a society based around greed in such a away as an anarco-capitalist one

Mind telling us how it would be based around greed? You seem to assume that because being greedy is legal under anarchocapitalism (within bounds, as theft and fraud are still illegal), everyone would be greedy. That's a non sequitur.

>Thank the lord, the last thing we need is anarco-kiddies screwing everything up for the rest of us.

Okay. Let me reiterate this:

>"If you like libertarianism so much, why don't you opt out?"

>"Because you don't allow it."

To which you reply with this:

>Thank the lord, the last thing we need is anarco-kiddies screwing everything up for the rest of us.

By this, you also somehow assume that of ancaps opted out, somehow, everything would turn to shit. I take that as a compliment.

>>14322

>Can't handle the bantz

>>14316

This is pretty cancerous tho

>>14330

>ifunny

>>14373

The best part is that they keep digging like it'll get them out of this and eventually they'll declare victory and walk away.

>>14410

Seems to me they somehow walked away without declaring victory. Anyone know where they went?

>>14412

I think there are still a few commies shitposting in other threads on /liberty/.

>>14422

*to leave

>>14422

> If I work on a land and a capitalist claim it his own and I refuse to live he will have to use force against me.

The important question is: Is it your land?

If it isn't yours, then your using it is depriving him of the fruits of his labor; you are enslaving him for the portion of his labor that he devoted to that land. He is thus justified in defending his claim, against which you are aggressing. If it is yours, then he has no right to take your land, and now you're the one enforcing your property rights. In this case, you are justified in defending your claim.

Both of you may choose to exercise this enforcement through violence, but that's a sufficiently risky, costly, and ill-received to only be useful in urgent scenarios. It's much more likely that you'll contract out the enforcement and arbitration of your competing claims, so the truth can be reached about whose claim is legitimate.

That's why throughout history, most inter-personal property disputes have been settled without violence:

http://www.libertarianismo.org/livros/reowlhnsd.pdf

>>14425

>moving le goalpost

cheating

>heiarchy

why are you so scared of another man being better than you? Also, being AnCom is a mental disease.

>>14427

> Also, being AnCom is a mental disease.

the sockpuppeting is real

did some little pinko faggot call for backup? sure seems like it

>>14427

The goalpost was to prove that capitalism require hierarchy. I didn't move it.

>why are you so scared of another man being better than you?

A hierarchical structure doesn't mean that the ones at the top are "better" (better in what by the way?). For example people have a total moron as their mayor, depute or president.

>>14433

>The goalpost was to prove that capitalism require hierarchy. I didn't move it.

no, you stated that the property did not have to belong to anyone in the first place.

>A hierarchical structure doesn't mean that the ones at the top are "better" (better in what by the way?).

Richer, and in a capitalist (without government interaction) society, only honest people get rich.

>For example people have a total moron as their mayor, depute or president.

so?

>>14434

>so?

So there are hierarchical structures where the ones at the top aren't better.

>>14285

"Privatized profits is not capitalism"

Kek, it's literally the definition of capitalism.

>>14436

>nitpicking and ignoring "+socialized losses"

>>14435

>le heiarchy

that isn't the case in lasseiz-faire capitalism. Only the virtuous rise to the top.

>>14434

>in a capitalist (without government interaction) society, only honest people get rich.

Is this bait?

commies btfo

>>14288

>capitalism is not the same as free markets

IF the markets are not free, there is an entity (i.e.e a state) restricting it. If so, then it is not capitalism, but mercantilism.

>>14330

>those great jobs with their accident prone factories, unbelievably low wages, and no time off

Leisure time and wages increased and safety standards improved when the US transitioned to an industrialized economy.

>>14324

>No charity can eliminate poverty or starvation.

If so, then collectivist societies cannot eliminate poverty or starvation.

>You can't be a slave to nature

yes you can. Your actions are restricted by biological needs.

>If bitcoins were a more widely accepted currency, I'd imagine more people would be making them

bitcoin production has a reduced marginal utility that prevents hyper inflation.

>>14422

>.png

>private-property based anarcho-syndicalist

leftists just BTFO themselves

>>14487

>So violence doesn't determine status or authority? What about state violence?

You haven't been talking about violence itself; we've been talking about the very capacity for violence. You sprang on the fact that I pointed out the physical possibility for people to engage in violence, and concluded that therefore a hierarchy existed. By that reasoning, anything short of universal quadruple amputation of all persons is hierarchy.

Any vaguely reasonable person recognizes that no matter the method of social organization, violence is physically possible. What changes that capacity for violence into hierarchy is whether or not some persons are granted exemption from the normative opposition to initiating aggression. States are characterized precisely from their exemption from otherwise universal normative rules. It is this exemption which constitutes their power to coerce without consequence (at least, without direct personal consequence, as the real physical costs of their actions are simply passed on to others). That is power.

>If one of us can throw out the other because muh property then he is clearly ranked above.

False, because all persons have the same right to determine how their property is used. I decide how my stuff is used and you decide how your stuff is used. We have the same legal power; only the specific items to which we apply them are different. I have exclusive ownership of my body and you have exclusive ownership of yours.

My right to control my body and stop you from doing the same does not establish a hierarchy over you, since you have an identical right. We're playing by the same rules, and we only expose ourselves to acceptable violence by breaking those rules.

>That pic

No AnCap is opposing the voluntary formation of communes. If a bunch of folks want to pile their respective triangles into a larger commonly-held triangle, that's fine (in fact, to a considerable extent, that's what a corporation is). The only opposition comes when those collectivists try to subsume our space into theirs.

Have your commune, but the second you try to take my land, you're going to have a problem. I'll respect your commonly-held property if you'll respect my individually-held property.

>>14487

>muh violence

WHAT THE FUCK ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS YOU RETARD

SERIOUSLY, GO READ A FUCKING BOOK ONCE

>what do you mean

lol

don't use .png

>>14470

>Slow down there, friend

I'm not AnCap

',:^>

>>14505

>I'm not AnCap

Didn't say you were. The point was, even as "extreme" a pro-market guy as I am, I'd caution against saying "only the virtuous rise to the top", for the reasons mentioned above.

>>14488

>We have the same legal power; only the specific items to which we apply them are different.

Land is an item in which we can physically be, so our legal power is not the same depending on the area. If I am in your land, you are in charge, if you are in mine, I am in charge.

>I have exclusive ownership of my body and you have exclusive ownership of yours.

I rather think that we are our bodies, hence we cannot own them.

>>14487

>What do you mean?

Anarcho-syndacalists are against private property. The description in that image is contradictory.

>>14537

>Land is an item in which we can physically be, so our legal power is not the same depending on the area. If I am in your land, you are in charge, if you are in mine, I am in charge.

That does not mean we can do whatever we want to people on our land. What you regard as authority over them is derived from the landowners right to make them leave. It is, therefore, not comparable to the territorial sovereignty of a state.

>I rather think that we are our bodies, hence we cannot own them.

Considering that property is the exclusive right of usage and disposition, we do own our bodies indeed.

>>14537

>Land is an item in which we can physically be, so our legal power is not the same depending on the area.

So is my house. That doesn't mean you have a right to break in to the place where I live.

>If I am in your land, you are in charge, if you are in mine, I am in charge.

In order to place yourself at my mercy, you had to actively enter my territory. I can't force that relationship on you; you had to go out of your way to do it. No sympathy.

Also, you seem to think that this will translate into everyone shooting everyone else who tries to enter their land. Good luck conducting trade that way. Most folks allow some conditional use of their private property. The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't mean that they will do it.

>>14537

This guy >>14546 says it best.

>>14596

>nigger detected

>>14562

>iron curtain was to keep people out

nice meme

>>14651

The wall was built to keep people in. And I don't want to know how many resources went into the damn thing.

>>14650

tbh I've never once seen a commie who didn't resort to insults

>>14744

> have been forced by the government into being violent as fuck.

citation needed

>could be considered the most heavily regulated market in existence

no it isnt, there are no laws but "right is might" there is innovation in smuggling and in the drugs itself (designer drugs) and people are unable to buy from a competitior, because the cartels fight one another for turf

if anything, it proves state is a necessity, because you dont see alcohol or tobacco CEOs killing each other

>>14813

lets not forget one las thing, alcohol and tobacco have to follow a set of regulations, imposed by the state, in order to guarantee a quality product

something drug cartels dont do

>>14813

>no it isnt, there are no laws but "right is might" there is innovation in smuggling and in the drugs

Why the fuck do you think they're smuggling drugs and doing all of this underground shit? Because if they get caught then they'll get shot by a firing squad.

>>14820

>Why the fuck do you think they're smuggling drugs and doing all of this underground shit?

>he belives drug cartels want drugs legalized

>>14821

>Drug runners really like smuggling drugs at the risk of death, their family members being threatened with death, being constantly on the run from government, and witnessing things that would make any normal person go insane

Enlighten me.

>>14821

Of course they don't want them legalized, because then they would have to do with competition everywhere. By prohibiting the sale of drugs, government is in effect giving licensure to criminals and barring everyone else.

>muh drugs

http://8ch.net/liberty/res/14568.html

>>14568

>>14279

>>14279

>Responding to kiddy diddlers

>Especially Anna who I know for a fact slept around with minors

I know these people a little too well IRL so I'm gonna avoid this shit wherever possible.

As per your statement you quoted…

cap·i·tal·ism

ˈkapədlˌizəm/

noun

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market; enterprise culture

"the capitalism of emerging nations"

I'll respond to people like C4SS when they stop using their misinterpretations of words like Capitalism.

>>14828

the reason why drug cartels dont want drugs legalized is to avoid paying taxes, to avoid creating product standars, avoid tariffs, stop syndicates from being created, minimum wages, etc. to them money is more important than anything

cartel leaders keep all the profit, its the gunmen the ones who do the dirty work

>>14835

no one is stopping you from entering the drug market except:

>an completly private sector, run under no laws

>protected by PMC's and faux goverment anti-drug agencies

>not being able to compete with their industry >not having the capital and connections to bride the law

basically what would happen under ancap

>>14850

You know those people? Care to tell us more?

>>14883

>the reason why drug cartels dont want drugs legalized is to avoid paying taxes, to avoid creating product standars, avoid tariffs, stop syndicates from being created, minimum wages, etc. to them money is more important than anything

Alrighty. So if anything outlawing the drug market would just make things worse.

>>14850

The ancaps favourite philosopher: the dictionary! You are fucking retarded, kill yourself

>>14813

>citation needed

The government cracking down on drug traders did NOT force them to defend themselves from it? Good one.

>no it isnt, there are no laws but "right is might" there is innovation in smuggling and in the drugs itself (designer drugs) and people are unable to buy from a competitior, because the cartels fight one another for turf

you dense fuck.

It's regulated in that the state has prohibited it and forced the entire market into violence.

>>14883

>the reason why drug cartels dont want drugs legalized is to avoid paying taxes, to avoid creating product standars, avoid tariffs, stop syndicates from being created, minimum wages, etc. to them money is more important than anything

Way to change the topic to how the free market encourages shitty working conditions. It doesn't, and we already explained why, in like a dozen threads.

The cartels are not unregulated. The governmet cracks down on the drug trade, driving all but the most crazy and violent competitors out, pressuring everyone to be as crazy and violent as he can get away with, and with the government being as corrupt and inefficient as it is, they can get away with a lot. Not to mention that the police is so ridiculously corrupt, it probably works for the cartels just as often as it does for their victims. Being paid by taxes, that means the cartels are essentially subsidized.

>>14896

your argument is like a creationist complaining about scientists using the dictionary definition of evolution

>>14885

I do. They work heavily with Students For Liberty, but SFL hates their guts.

Most of them are either hard core LGBBQ faggots who want to set up safe spaces IRL, or mislead left-libertarians. The folks in charge of/who work most heavily with C4SS (with the exception of Roderick Long… Sometimes) is pretty much the slightly functional autistic child of Left-Libertarianism and the Libertarian movement as a whole.

The only good point about them is that I know a lot of the guys in C4SS will back your shit up and keep you out of trouble with the police/with other Libertarians if someone's being a douche or sexually harassing folks.

>>14896

See >>14916

>>14916

http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution

>>14975

See >>14989

>>14291

>Categorically false. To have excess wealth is to have power, and to have power is to have power over others, and to have power over others, well, that is antithetical to freedom. I'm not an anarco-kiddie, but this is a legitimate argument.

Holy fucking Hell, no it's not. If your post wasn't so goddamned long I'd think you were trolling.

I must say, /leftypol/ got btfo

>>14336

>privilege

>>>/oven/

>>14989

My post was meant to show how creationists misrepresent evolution as if "micro"-evolution is different from "macro"-evolution, when it is not. This is analogous to how leftists misrepresent a state-control economic system as capitalism, when it is not.

>>14989

I am not sure what your argument here is since the link only shows one definition for biological evolution.