/liberty/ - Liberty

>>15417

money is just a representation of value

>what is value

and intrinsic property of commodities that is based on two things: the labour theory of value and supply and demand

>b-but thats impossible!

there is a reason hand made products are usually seen as superior :^)

>fiat currency.

its pretty dumb but its concept is good

because it tries to group all commodities under supply and demand, yet not all commodities should be priced equally

money monopolies should disappear anyway

>>15430

The labor theory of value is complete and utter crap. I would go so far as to say that it flat-out isn't applicable, in a number of cases. Socially necessary labor? Doesn't get much more vague than that.

>>15432

it isnt tho

you dont seem to understand that several of its postulates are entirely applicable to modern life

>made 20 chairs

>get paid for making 20 chairs

>instead of being forced to biuld 20 chairs in the same time it would take me to build 10 chairs

>if I get to build 20 chairs in 10 minutesI can leave earlier, or decide to build another 20 chairs and get paid for them

hourly wages are utter crap

>>15430

Value isn't based off the amount of labour put into anything. Value is entirely subjective, in your example >>15438, it doesn't matter how many chairs you make, if the price of your chairs is more than what people are willing to pay or if there is simply no demand for chairs (practically speaking, those two are exactly the same thing), then your chairs aren't worth anything no matter how much effort you put into them.

>>15441

basically

however the value of a chair has my labour added to it, the final price of a chair should have my labour counted into it, this labour should be assigned to each and every commodity a worker manufactures

I turned the wood onto a chair, the guy who designed it helped, the lumberjack helped, the boss helped (although he was probably doing nothing in his office), the people transporting the chair helped, etc

so the final price of a chair should consider my salary and other expenses

>it doesn't matter how many chairs you make, if the price of your chairs is more than what people are willing to pay or if there is simply no demand for chairs

yes, but the theory of value and modern interpretentions of it dont force this to become the ruling order

if your company cannot sell its chairs, its not because of the labour theory, but because the boss, the marketing team and the final price of the commodity has failed to compete with the ones in the market

i dont give a shit if they failed, its not my responsability, I built 20 chairs, pay me 20 chairs, thats what I was hired for

>b-but i will give you X money for 8 hours of work

no, this is bullshit, if you need to make more money, develop machinery that reduces the time it takes me to make 20 chairs, find cheaper raw material, or whatever

you dont have the right to exploit workers

this of course of from a worker's pov, but it is alss applicable from a boss' one

>>15443

> I built 20 chairs, pay me 20 chairs, thats what I was hired for

But in the scenario you've proposed, the 20 chairs you've made are worthless. You would be paid less in your hypothetical than you would if you were simply paid for your hourly work

>>15443

>>15448

All a matter of the contract. If the company has agreed to pay you for every chair you make in advance, they better pay you. They couldn't sell them? Doesn't matter, they still have to pay up. That's the good thing about working for a loan: You get paid in advance (time preference), and you take no responsibility for how well your company actually performs.

http://bunkermag.org/marxist-economics-labor-source-value/

>>15448

>But in the scenario you've proposed, the 20 chairs you've made are worthless

no they aren't, the value I inserted in them is waht I will get paid for

>You would be paid less in your hypothetical than you would if you were simply paid for your hourly work

no???

>>15449

yeah, but contracts should follow the labour theory of value, or at least the positive aspets of it, most of current empliyment works like that

>and you take no responsibility for how well your company actually performs.

well yeah, but the difference is how you get paid

>>15451

This is pretty ridiculous, because this example ignores basic universal facts. Even if the factory works as you say and the entire universe was covered in them, they would still not be able to produce an infinite amount of goods due to time. These goods, therefore, are scarce. Would the marxist have us believe that if one were to bend down and pick up a nugget of ore off the ground, that ore would be near worthless because I expended almost no labour to collect it?

>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.

The price wouldn't be arbitrary. Due to value being subjective, the owner of the factory would have to charge a price that people would be willing to pay for the good. If I had an automated factory that produced mashed potatoes, I could not charge any arbitrary price for the end product, I would be forced to charge a price at market clearing level. Prices are determined by supply and demand, they're not arbitrary.

Secondly, the factory owner would hardly not be entitled to not earn any money from this automated factory. This is a flaw that always seems to pop up when people argue for the labour theory of value. For me to build the factory, I need time, capital goods (scarce resources) and for it to be successful I need entrepreneurship, the foresight to see the demand in the future. All these things are just as indivisible as labour in the production of goods.

>>15460

sure thing, but don't cry over le surplus value.

>>15468

> I would be forced to charge a price at market clearing level.

What about the NAP tho

>>15486

>I would like to sell you this apple for $1000

>I am not willing to buy an apple for such a large price, I will buy your apple for $1 instead

>THAT'S VIOLATING THE NAP THOUGH

Holy shit, this thread is like the blind and deaf talkin' to each other.

Syndicating: AnCap understands what you're saying. He's saying that you'll be paid based on contract rather than on building 20 chairs unless you're willing to get paid far less, and take the capital risk for more profits down the line. He's saying your contract is based on market forces, not your labor.

AnCap: This Syndicalist is actually one of the more intelligent lefties reading through his post, he just doesn't understand (or perhaps more accurately he doesn't want to accept) that what he is suggesting is based on market prices. Yes, labor theory is not a completely sound structure, but he's more concerned with labor than the actual selling of goods so going on about the good's price isn't going to get you anywhere.

>>15417

I've gotta eat something. Will post when I get back/have access to a computer instead of this phone.

Sorry for derailing a bit, OP.

>>15417

>"what is money?"

This is a more difficult question since anything has the potential to be money.

The best way to explain it is that money is a medium of exchange that usually (but doesn't have to) have certain values that make it good as a currency.

These typically include being…

1) Valued by a large number of people

2) Easily divisible

3) Typically a scarce or limited resource to prevent massive inflation/deflation on the dime

4) etc.

Vid related is a perfect example of how all sorts of things can be money. Some drug dealers trade in club penguin memberships while prisoners trade in cigarettes.

>What would be your opinion on fiat currency.

If enough people want to trade in it, it's a legitimate currency.

That being said, fiat is subject to a lot of issues, especially with fractional reserve banking (there is no limit on how much you can give away), determining the price of goods in a market since fiat can fluctuate wildly (the first federal minimum wage in silver would be about the equivalent of ~$14.50 today in USD after accounting for inflation), and how easy it is to exploit (Hitler just erased all of his debts by printing more money, a power of fiat that other materials lack). Fiat suffers from a lot of the issues of centralized power, and typically ends in bloodshed to protect its "value" (see the US wars).

That being said, websites like mycokerewards make use of fiat currency all the time. It's great on a small scale since even if it's not technically backed up, it's still backed up by something behind the scenes. It's just not that great on a large scale.

>How do you think it works

Typically it comes about in one of two ways.

1) An authority uses a real currency for forever and a day, and then after a shortage in said real currency, they get scared and switch over to fiat "temporarily." They promise a certain value for the fiat, but then the price of the resource changes and they realize they don't have enough money, so they just stay on fiat "permanently."

2) An individual creates a fiat currency and injects it into the local community (such as bitcoin). It proceeds to gain traction as a secondary currency (especially among those who don't want to have all of their assets known), typically in the underground/black and red markets. Eventually it spreads into real life as entrepreneurs see its worth as a competing currency. Then, it's just a matter of if enough of the currency is in exchange to keep it viable (Bitcoin for instance has multiple half lives, and was never meant to be a permanent currency- BitStock, its hopeful successor, is intending to take that role).

Fiat is confusing and frightening because while it has some of the qualities of resource-based currencies (such as divisibility), it typically lacks things like continuity (BitCoin) or security/stability (USD).

>>15487

That might sound stupid in your sterile, abstract ancap utopia where only two person exists, but in the real world, the market is a coercive force.

>>15507

>coercion

co·er·cion

kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/Submit

noun

the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

"it wasn't slavery because no coercion was used"

synonyms: force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure

"Johnson claims the police used coercion to extract a confession"

Before we continue on this path, are you sure this is the term you want to use?

>>15510

And if so, how do you consider it coercive*

>>15497

>implying getting paid for contract means you get paid more

>"b-but you will get paid the same even in you make just 1 chair"

>condoning such an inefficient behaviour

>>15544

You have the right to negotiate terms. If the difference of efficiency between labourers within a company is so great, then you have all the negotiating power in the world to demand that you're paid more, since if you leave your production efficiency leaves with you.

>>15510

Quoting your favourite philosopher again, I see

>>15538

They have different understandings of the same words.

>>15512

Two persons can act voluntarily to create a situation where a third has to act against their self-interest, without resorting to violence.

>>15554

>Two persons can act voluntarily to create a situation where a third has to act against their self-interest, without resorting to violence.

You're equating acting in an imperfect world with acting against your self-interest. These two are entirely different things. If me and my neighbor decide to stop selling potatoes to you (because you fucked both our wifes) and now you have to buy them from another vendor for twice the price, then we're not forcing you to act against your self-interest by doing so.

>>15552

He's just defining the term. If someone asks you "are you sure this is the term you want to use?" then it's because they want to have an argument that isn't based on semantics

>>15566

Quoting the dictionary is literally making the argument about semantics.

>>15574

He quoted the dictionary because that's where the most common definition is. If two arguing parties don't establish a single definition then both of them will twist their own definitions and the argument will revolve around semantics.

>>15574

I quoted the dictionary because 9/10 the terms Marxists are using are not in-tune with the commonly accepted terms, and it creates an unnecessary shitfest that I'm not willing to invest time into.

I'm establishing basic mutually agreeable terms so that it's not a matter of shouting faggot back and forth when we're using the same words with completely different meanings faggot.

See

>>15566

>>15582

>>15554

Are you making the argument that the third individual has to be violent to work in their self-interest, or that coercion doesn't have to be violent (even though it's commonly accepted as the threat of violence)?

If it's the first, then I'd ask what allowed the man to get into that situation in the first place. If it's something like >>15560 said. then the person did it to themselves.

Working in one's self interest isn't always good, and you'd be hard pressed to find folks who say it is.

The key is that even if someone works in their own self-interest, following the principle of nonviolence (theft to be defined as a form of violence), they tend to help the community because it's the only way to make oneself prosper. For instance, my friend's mother used to manage a Hollywood Video rental store. When there was a theft at Blockbuster, they'd report it to Hollywood Video and vice versa. At first glance it might not seem to work in their own self-interest, but as it turns out, mutually cooperating tends to produce the best quality of life for oneself, so it's in their self interest to play nice with others.

>>15592

Marxists use the philosophically accepted definitions, not the common ones. Pulling the dictionary like that is similar to how SJWs got triggered when they've found out that certain databases had a master-slave relationship.

>>15599

But Marxists refer to to voluntary work as "exploitation". That doesn't make any sense.

>>15599

Pretty sure the philosophically accepted definitions are typically more rigorous than the dictionary definitions though in defining coercion as an act of implied violence. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy designates it as an act from the coercer meant to undermine the freedom or rights of a coercee, which basically translates as "a threat of violence" unless we're introducing new rights that Libertarians never thought existed in the first place (in which case, the Marxist should make the case for those new rights that we don't recognize).

In my mind, it would seem that the Marxist is trying to redefine what is considered correct (much in the same way feminists try to change the words whore/slut, or how homosexuals have been trying to change the word gay/queer while ruining the rainbow in the process), and would be better off just defining any "advanced" words from the start if they don't want to be triggered when people that don't interact with their super secret club try to figure shit out.

Much in the same way that I'm not going to read cucumberupmyassism philosophy unless I see a convincing argument and want to find out more from a cucumberupmyassist, I'm also unwilling to read a dozen books when I know the other party wouldn't do the same unless they have a good argument. Though they'll certainly claim they understand our philosophy from that one 10 page essay on Lew Rockwell while completely fucking it up when asked to describe it.

>>15608

>Though they'll certainly claim they understand our philosophy from that one 10 page essay on Lew Rockwell while completely fucking it up when asked to describe it.

This, so many times!

>>15609

Why wasn't pic posted?

>>15606

They don't though.

>>15606

>how can voluntarly starve!

>>15635

>a good ten percent of that stupid dogshit is spoilered

Well done.

>>15635

>1) Go to the local church looking for handouts

and if they dont give you one?what they wont feed you forever, you will end up starving

>2) Panhandle (it's not illegal in a free market)

you will only receive a couple of bucks, you will end up starving

>3) Go to a charity for food

see number 1)

>5) Couch surf at friends' houses and raid their fridges

see number 1) and 3)

and thy wont give you food forever

>6) Get a fucking job you damned hippy

yeah, but due to the fact that in an ancrap utopia you have to deal with the of shit-tier wages, you will end up starving

>g-go somewhere else

what are cartels for $500?

>7) Go snare a small rodent and fry it

starving-tier

>8) Go hunting

where, in some landlords private property?, there is no public property in an ancrap utopia

>9) Go forage for nuts and berries in the wild

starving-tier

>10) Go dumpster diving at a nearby grocery store

starving-tier

>11) Learn programming and program a website for some faggot for 10% of the website's earnings, use the money to buy food

you cant be this retarded

>12) Ask people for food

starving-tier

>13) Deliver mail for people

done by automation

>14) Create something and sell it

cartels and oligopolies stop me from doing it

>15) Steal a potato from someone's garden because someone with mental retardation is smarter than you and would do something from 1-14, and risk getting shot

this is also starving-tier

>My guess is it's remembering all the fun times under the USSR like the holodomor.

1929 capitalist America :^)

>>15635

>just do things that you can't do because they involve private property and the property owner would shoot you

Are you retarded

>>15642

Not the ancap you replied to

>and if they dont give you one?

Then you have fourteen more options left. Now, why the hell would the church stop feeding you unless you pissed off everyone who visits it?

>you will only receive a couple of bucks, you will end up starving

If panhandling was that ineffective, crime syndicates would never have made a business out of it.

>and thy wont give you food forever

If you're a useless, ungrateful cunt, true. If you make yourself useful and they really like you, I could imagine someone pulling that off for years.

>yeah, but due to the fact that in an ancrap utopia you have to deal with the of shit-tier wages, you will end up starving

Except real wages would rise in the absence of taxes, competition between businesses would rise and so nominal taxes would rise too, and holy shit does this argument ever get more sophisticated than "businesses will pay their workers less because there will be no minimum wage"?

>starving-tier

So, no invasion of rodents in ayncrapistan?

>where, in some landlords private property?,

Good luck first homesteading an entire fucking forest and then keeping it under surveillance 24/7.

>there is no public property in an ancrap utopia

There is unowned property. Again, homesteading an entire forest isn't easy.

>Dumpster diving is starving-tier

http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouver+fireworks+boon+city+bottle+collectors/3334521/story.html?__lsa=8557-a067

You can make $ 40 a day collecting bottles. That's enough to survive without being starving.

>you cant be this retarded [about being a web-programmer]

I'd actually pay for a service like that, because I can't program worth shit.

>Mail delivery done by automation

Mail is not delivered by robots.

>cartels and oligopolies stop me from doing it

Cartels stop you from taking scrap metal, forming it into unicorns and dragons and selling it to people on the street? They stop you from speedpainting pictures of people for five dollars each? Do you really think any of your fictitious cartels would even give a fuck about that? In fact, I bet my ass some of them would pay you to stay in their goddamn park and sell your merchandise to make it more interesting.

So, to summarize: Your argument that people would starve lies on the assumptions that

1. people would not get a job and

2. had no access to charity for a time long enough to get a job and

3. had no access to friends that could give them a home and food for a time long enough to get a job or access to charity to bridge the time before they get a job and

4. could not make enough money begging, dumpster diving or being a street vendor to survive and

5. could not find enough food on the streets to supplement their diet if the income they had due to work or charity was too low to survive.

That's a shitload of assumptions, you know that?

>>15642

>Shit tier wages

Burger king used to pay their employees $11/hour in the 80s before they were liable for shit like medical.

I've got home-made pizzas in the oven. Will respond to the whole post before I leave for work.

>>15642

I'm gonna make a few assumptions, namely that you come from an upper-middle class household (or recieve FAFSA), and have not had to work (other than "because you wanted to" or "because you wanted an income you could spend how you wanted to"). Therefore, you feel some sense of guilt at not having to work while others do, and/or you're a NEET who thinks that he deserves food and shelter simply for existing.

No one deserves jack shit, but everyone should have the right to survive if they prove they have some measurable worth.

Whenever you say "starving-tier" I'm going to interpret it as "Either I'm too lazy/I can't play games if I'm doing that, or I look down on people who do that." As someone who started out in the upper middle class until our dad left us when I was in middle school dropping us to below poverty levels of living, I know suffering/hard times better than most.

>and if they dont give you one?what they wont feed you forever

Then you probably pissed off everyone in the church somehow, and you still have other options. My mother was LDS, those guys will hook you up with food and even help you get a job and a cheap education if you ask for help.

>you will only receive a couple of bucks

Most panhandlers have figured out they can make more money guilt tripping idiots than working actual jobs. In Utah, three college kids raised $100,000 back in (I think) 2008 in three months by panhandling.

>and thy wont give you food forever

No, but they'll help you find a job or try to get you off the streets if they're real friends and not this millennial "friends" bullshit.

>shit-tier wages

Shit-tier wages are propagated by the state and the federal reserve's inflationary policy, and cartels are expensive without state interference/easily destroyable. See: Rockefeller or Koch industries, both of which broke up oil cartels by pretty much simply existing and offering fair prices in comparison to their competitors.

>there is no public property in an ancrap utopia

You can only own property in AnCapistan if you can show that you're using it. A corporation or individual can't own a patch of land and wait 20 years for some faggot to touch it before suing them. We follow common law practices in most cases, and common law supports squatter's rights.

So while there is no "public" property, there is such a thing as "unowned" property. The difference being that anyone can make claim to unowned property if they can show that they're using it, defining its borders, and defending it. Defending an entire forest is fucking expensive.

>Dumpster-diving is starving-tier

Says the guy who's philosophy constantly bitches about food getting thrown out left and right.

See >>15656

>creating websites is retarded

Digital means of production are worth a lot of money, and while I'm tech-savvy enough to work on computers and certain robots, my coding is still shit and I'd rather leave web design to an expert or a friend and pay them for it. Just this month I paid someone to keep up an RPG server.

>done by automation

If things are automated in AnCapistan anyways, then food will cost literal pennies, so your argument about having low/unlivable wages is bullshit. You can't have it both ways.

>cartels and oligopolies stop me from doing it

The park and grocery store cartel won't give a shit unless you smell like booze and scare off children.

Oligopolies can go oligobble their balls. Without state interference, the requirements to form a monopoly/oligopoly are a lot fucking higher than they are now since competitors can spawn up much more easily.

>15 is also starving-tier

This is also what commies and socialists do because their mutual circlejerk ends up starving everyone when no one puts in enough effort thinking the others will pick up the slack. America learned this lesson first-hand when the original colonies tried out a form of mutual property ownership and proceeded to nearly starve.

Like >>15656 said, you rely on dozens of assumptions, many of them hypocritical/directly clashing with each other.

So tell me, how do you plan to deal with this then? (inb4 "lol food magically comes out of nowhere to feed the masses!")

>>15656

>"businesses will pay their workers less because there will be no minimum wage"?

there is a reason why buisnesses pay minimum wage, its because they cant pay less, its illegal for them

yet in the current system they can take factories abroad, pay less taxes and lower wages and get away with it, so yes, it would happen, because it does happen

>Good luck first homesteading an entire fucking forest and then keeping it under surveillance 24/7.

>get caught

>get shot

>There is unowned property.

and who has the authority to stop someone from claiming ownership of that land

>You can make $ 40 a day collecting bottles.

that depends solely on the economic situation, if garbage is picked up by robots this wont be a possibility

>Cartels stop you from taking scrap metal, forming it into unicorns and dragons and selling it to people on the street?

considering the street would be owned by wal-mart™, yes

the idea that at the end of the day, the highest form of employment the proletariat would be allowed to reach is, picking up trash, working as a maid, or living a feral life is incredibly retarded

>people will buy me a dragon made out of metal forever!

first of all, there is absolutely no reason why the means of production should be owned by an individual, turning them into private proverty and being able to control wages in whatever way the wish

this is just as retarded as thinking the state wouldnt do the same thing, yet anacaps belive somehow a private master will be any different

second, if you have to consider living a feral life, be able to pick up trash or wagelsaving, the system is empirically flawed, not only because without common ownership there would be no places to hunt or live, or that all trash will be picked up by buisnesses that charge citizensfor the labour of picking trash or that you would be forced to accept working conditions that would be objectively shit, bt because such hierarchical system would only allow such conducts to keep on existing

its is incredibly retarded to belive in /liberty/ and belive in anything but a system free of hierarchies

>That's a shitload of assumptions, you know that?

yes, because the whole argument is based on assumptions from boths sides, assumptions that however are mostly backed up by facts, it is stupid to deny the idea that explotation would cease to exist in an anacap utopia, and it is retarded to belive that such explotation has not happened in the past

>>15683

>I'm gonna make a few assumptions

pretty retarded ones

>No one deserves jack shit

not even the right of property

>but everyone should have the right to survive if they prove they have some measurable worth.

I dont need to prove you shit, you arent the authority

>b-but I am the authority because I am the propiertariat

no, fuck you, this is literally the same as the state/monarchy/dictator claiming superiroty based on material conditions which were previously stablished in an unfair way

>I look down on people who do that

go ask someone who lives under minimum wage, in the third world, and tell me they enjoy it, and look further into the idea of continuing working like that

>brotip, they dont

there is nothing unmorality about complaing about shit-paying hobs, if you rather defend morality over the ideas of fighting for your freedom of labour u are beyond spooked

>Shit-tier wages are propagated by the state and the federal reserve's inflationary policy

no they are not, does the states force anyone to pay minimum wages?, I didn't know such thing existed

outsourcing is a clear example of this, to belive the capital owner wont look for ways to increase their revenues by lowering wages is being naive

>If things are automated in AnCapistan anyways, then food will cost literal pennies, so your argument about having low/unlivable wages is bullshit.

you seem to belive prices cannot be manipulated, while the idea of manipulating the price of food is very dumb, you can manipulated the conditions needed to create said food, lowering the supply is a perfect example of this, while buisnesses might not let people starve, they will keep inflating the price to be able to extract more profit

>This is also what commies and socialists do because their mutual circlejerk ends up starving everyone when no one puts in enough effort thinking the others will pick up the slack.

this is such a retarded statement, read a book

>you rely on dozens of assumptions

the truth is I never brougth any assumptions, the idea that capitalist bourg in the abssence of authority can and will exploit you is not an assumption, is a reality that ended in child labour, unions, enviromental agencies, minimum wage etc needed to be created, economi crisis etc

this fact was you replied with assumptions of the pseudointellectualism kind, basically the usual "hurr get a jub" tier shows that the one relaying in assumptions is you, because you did not addressed how the system will stop such problems from occurring, just an answer to the problem (an answer that wont work in the long run) As a matter of fact, you are agreeing wit the moment you looked for an answer to this fictonal problem in which the worker was exploited, you understand that such situation is probable under anacapism

>So tell me, how do you plan to deal with this then? (inb4 "lol food magically comes out of nowhere to feed the masses!")

no, thats not how thinks work, the bourg will exploit the proletariat based on the fact that they own stolen property, this is explotation by itself

food comes from the land which is not owned by individuals, but the ones who work on it and manage it

this based on historical eventsin which the capitalist will end up exploiting the collective, you can call it buisness or state, that is irrelevant, the hierarchical system is agaings liberty

so again how is a choice between being exploited and having to starve not explotation by itself?

>b-but you can go get exploited somewher else!

>>15657

They frequently lock them and will call the police on you if they see you diving in their trash.

>>15688

Only 3% of workers make minimum wage.

Obviously employers value labor at below what they earn, but they only pay minimum when the job is worth minimum.

A minimum also sets a precedent to not argue over wages, and makes an employer use it instead of figuring it out themselves.

You do realize an employer has to pay about 20,000-40,000/year to hire someone for minimum wage due to government taxes and regulations, right?

>>15689

>go ask someone who lives under minimum wage, in the third world, and tell me they enjoy it, and look further into the idea of continuing working like that

I know a number of Chinese immigrants turned Libertarian who worked in those sweatshops.

The alternatives were a lot worse.

>>15713

The alternative was farm work like in your many socialist revolutions, before you try and misconstrue that statement being smug.

The default is poverty, we need to figure out the recipe for prosperity (well, we think we have it- property rights).

>>15719

We already have property rights retard

>>15712

>Only 3% of workers make minimum wage.

I assume you mean in the US thats because most of the gentle labour has been ourcourced

>You do realize an employer has to pay about 20,000-40,000/year to hire someone for minimum wage due to government taxes and regulations, right?

poor guy ;_;, I assumer this stops him from profiting as much as the guy with bigger buisness that evade taxes right?

>>15713

nice anecdote

you should aske yourself if they are social libertarians tho, which most likely are

>The alternative was farm work like in your many socialist revolutions

lel

I guess being spooked leads you to belive this

>>15725

we don't because of imminent domain, taxes, and regulations

>>15745

>I assume this stops him from profiting

Often they do not profit and do not hire anyone new.

>>15642

>if they dont give you one?

So people are not charitable?

>you will only receive a couple of bucks, you will end up starving

homeless drug addicts can afford their habit and manage to not starve

>in an ancrap utopia you have to deal with the of shit-tier wages

not if you join a competant collective

>cartels and oligopolies stop me from doing it

black market anonymity makes these obsolete in today's market, so how will they prevent you in a free market?

>starving tier

all of these options have been shown to produce food