/liberty/ - Liberty

>>16800

IMO imprisoning shouldn't be so severe and people should be given fines more for stuff they could not replicate again.

Getting jailed for rape and murder is all fine. Getting jailed for, say, littering someone's private property or maybe a minimal economic mistake which led to delay in a contract is just bs.

I like this guy's take on the subject. Prisons are unquestionably wasteful.

I might point out that numerous societies throughout history have demonstrated little or no tendency to jail others; because of its wasteful nature, it could only be done in societies with sufficient economic excess to accommodate the waste. I don't think it's mentioned explicitly in the following text, but many of the societies discussed demonstrate legal systems which just don't provide for prisons:

daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html

>>16807

Gotta say, that honor ranking system used by the Irish seems more honest than what we have today. The police and other officials are regarded as more credible in court, period. Even when the judges are mistrustful, they will still value officials highly as witnesses. Billions of examples of it.

Prisons are immoral use of force, as far as I've been concerned for the past year or two.

There's dozens of alternatives. In a free market, prisons don't even make sense since it's a waste of time and money.

>>16815

>Prisons are immoral use of force

Okay. What do we do with violent and antisocial people who break the law then?

>>16821

according to him, send 'em to a church.

>>16815

>prisons are an immoral use of force.

No, and that is possible only if you believe you can never know anything for certain (which you already do). You're not sure if he's done something wrong, and hence you'd feel guilty sending him to jail.

>prisons are a waste of time and money in a free market

lol

What are you going to do with terrorists? Put your hands up? Because if you're averse to imprisoning them, then I doubt you'd kill them.

Protip: free market != AnCapism

>>16821

>Okay. What do we do with violent and antisocial people who break the law then?

Most people who break the law are not antisocial and not particularly violent. A lot of crime is committed by juveniles, and those tend to outgrow it eventually. The really, really antisocial ones will eventually end up pushed to the fringes of society or dead, and then they're out of the way.

>>16829

>What are you going to do with terrorists? Put your hands up? Because if you're averse to imprisoning them, then I doubt you'd kill them.

I can only speak for myself, but I actually believe I could kill an IS-goon myself, with a more or less clear conscience. I still feel bad for many of the poor idiots we send to prison.

>>16829

>No, and that is possible only if you believe you can never know anything for certain (which you already do). You're not sure if he's done something wrong, and hence you'd feel guilty sending him to jail.

That's an unbased assumption, and a fairly absurd one. Even if someone committed a crime - and in some cases, it's obvious he did -, then he may not deserve to be locked up over it. A punishment has to fit the crime, and face it, prison sentences fit preciously few crimes.

I wish someone could get up an anarchy and send all the anarchists to live in it.

They're so removed from reality it's unreal.

>>16859

That's what guns are for, you complete moron! Someone assaults you, you have a right to defend yourself. What exactly is so hard to understand about that?

>>16821

>What do we do with violent and antisocial people

They'll generally get themselves shot in the act of harming or threatening someone, in an armed society. Plus, nobody will want to do business with them, refusing to sell food and medicine, or even allow them on their property. Kind of hard not to get shot when everyone considers you a trespasser.

>who break the law

This is an extremely complicated question in a polycentric legal system. It depends on what sort of law is broken and what the relevant legal structures have to say about it. It can't be answered in such broad terms.

>>16829

>according to him, send 'em to a church.

That hasn't popped up in any of the proposed alternatives so far, so no.

>that is possible only if you believe you can never know anything for certain

Empirically, you can't, but the big problem with what you said is:

>You're not sure if he's done something wrong, and hence you'd feel guilty sending him to jail.

That is not the reason that prisons are immoral. The use of force is only justified in interrupting the initiatory use of force. Once an individual no longer poses a threat to you, you are not justified in continuing to use force, like they do with prisons.

>What are you going to do with terrorists?

There's no special class of criminals. In the Icelandic model, for instance, all crimes are torts. Anyone who attempts to do harm against anyone for any reason is simply a tortfeasor, and would have damages assessed against him accordingly. If he does not satisfy these damages, he loses the protection of law.

The distinction between civilian and military targets, and the use of violence to influence political outcomes, are non-referential in a society that lacks a political element.

>>16850

>I wish someone could get up an anarchy and send all the anarchists to live in it.

The very fact that you think you can just "[set?] up an anarchy" is evidence that you have no idea what the concept means. Fairly central to the idea of anarchy is that the concept of "an anarchy" (as though it were a collective unit) is nonsensical.

>>16859

>So we're just supposed to lock our door and stay out of his way until he grows out of it or gets killed by someone tougher.

Or you shoot him. With your gun. Which you have. Because you're free.

>>16864

set up an anarchy = institute an anarchy = no government

>Fairly central to the idea of anarchy is that the concept of "an anarchy" (as though it were a collective unit) is nonsensical.

k then

>>16850

>>16867

The commies actually tried that with a portion of land in… Ukraine I believe? It worked so well, they had to put a stop to it almost immediately.

>>16867

>set up an anarchy = institute an anarchy = no government

And how do you plan to actively institute a lack of a thing? That's not how it works.

Anarchy emerges from competing dynamic forces between separate social institutions. It isn't really an anarchy per se, any more than atheism is "a no god(s)"; it just isn't quite the right way to put it.

>>16881

https://archive.is/Qh1cb

>>16881

The only thing your argument proves is that you're confused and have no idea what you're talking about. How is having prison sentences in your jurisdiction going to prevent anyone from pulling out a gun and shooting you? Sure, it might deter them, but so will a million other things, like, I don't know, the prospect of being shot first and bleeding out in the street. In fact, criminals being shit at long-term planning means that the possibility of being shot within the next ten minutes will be a much stronger deterrent than the possibility of being jailed within the next six months.

Also, did you ignore the rest of what he said on purpose? No prisons =|= no means of removing violent criminals from society. Especially for the Rothbardians who very much believe in two eyes for an eye, but even the Orthobroians won't have much trouble arranging so many boycotts against hardened criminals they'll have no other choice but to leave, consent to 24/7 surveillance and give away their guns. Oh, and possibly have the contracts with your DRO nullified, so now, the courts will give a shit about you if you do get killed.

>>16881

Yeah, but he'll be outnumbered by his prospective victims. There's no winning that game. Go around picking gunfights and you'll lose one before long.

Plus, as was said before, immediate, high-probability consequences have a stronger disincentive effect than delayed, lower-probability consequences.

>>16875

dumbass

>>16910

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

>muh

You're not very clever, are you?

Also not much for reading comprehension.

>>16948

>not refuting anything

>implying onlt autists use maymays

no.

>>16910

>muh one terrorist

>what if there are a thousand?

Reminder that you completely ignored the first paragraph of my post.

If there are a thousand terrorists, then your problem lies not in punishing them, but in neutralizing the threat. Prisons are not preventive measures, and I believe I made this pretty clear.

>yep, and the guy is a fucking terrorist. Read my post again.

The post I replied to made absolutely no mention of terrorists. Feel free to correct me.

>muh laws should protect me from errything as soon as it happens

Okay. Where did I say that?

>muh imaginary 100 against 1 standoff

>this is what will happen errytime

Do you have a fucking idea how hard it is to understand your posts, you fucking retard? I have to read every single damn post you're replying to just to know what you're misrepresenting this time.

Sure, you won't have an army on your side in every shootout. So what? You don't fucking need one! One cornered guy with a gun can fuck you and your buddies up, big time. Even if you outnumber him ten to one, there's still a risk he'll kneecap one of you, which serves as an effective deterrent whether he lives or dies. If this deterrent doesn't work, then yes, you'll likely die, but - again - prisons are fucking repressive measures and don't change shit about that. When someone shoots you in the Peoples Republic of Communistan, you're dead. When the same thing happens in Ancapistan, you're still fucking dead.

>>16956

>>not refuting anything

Oh, that's rich, coming from you. I'll try to come out and say it this time, since you didn't pick up on the ever-so-subtle implication last time:

None of your commentary has much to do with the points you seem to think you're addressing.

For instance, you take the fact that those who wish to prey upon others will necessarily be outnumbered by their potential victims in any population, and you dismiss it by reducing the whole question to single encounters and imagining all the badguys facing off against just one goodguy at a time, instead of recognizing that the aggressor's repeated exposure to violence is an extremely poor strategy for survival.

Hell, take what you said under the "muh torting" section: What the hell does that have to do with anything? Really? What does "muh torting" even mean? Are you just laughing off entire fundamental aspects of law that have worked well for thousands of years, because reasons? And where did you get "muh 'if you step outside the line, you're dead' mentality"? How does that emerge from the basic recognition that people who routinely make enemies are increasingly likely to get their shit kicked? How do you get that from the fact that people who consistently demonstrate that they cannot be trusted won't be trusted?

The fact of the matter is that your reasoning is shit, your rhetoric is shit, and you seem to be in way over your head in this conversation.

>>16966

are you retarded?

>>(post 1)

blablablabla (line 1)

blablablabla (line 2)

>>(post 2)

as didnwkowhsndkdndjsi (line 3)

only line 1 and 2 are for post 1.

And, you were talking about self defense and that you could possibly take down and kill a single terrorist, to which I said that that wouldn't be so helpful if there were a thousand. The End. Nothing else in my post concerned you.

>>16968

>Only autists talk exclusively in memes. And as for refuting, fuck you, fuck your mother and fuck your sister in law, there's your refutation. You can't even grasp the fucking difference between preventing and punishing crimes, and your reading comprehension is the worst I have ever seen on /liberty/.

laff

>>16969

>None of your commentary has much to do with the points you seem to think you're addressing.

no.

>For instance, you take the fact that those who wish to prey upon others will necessarily be outnumbered by their potential victims in any population,

no.

> and you dismiss it by reducing the whole question to single encounters and imagining all the badguys facing off against just one goodguy at a time, instead of recognizing that the aggressor's repeated exposure to violence is an extremely poor strategy for survival.

His post implied his karate moves would keep away all bad guys. I was telling him that he'd be dead if there were a thousand terrorists.

>Hell, take what you said under the "muh torting" section: What the hell does that have to do with anything?

It's relevant.

>Really?

yes.

>What does "muh torting" even mean?

means you're using a very biased and one-sided and rather rare example to showcase your point, which means the context in which you visualize the problem is small, and might have errors.

>Are you just laughing off entire fundamental aspects of law that have worked well for thousands of years, because reasons?

I don't know if "torting" has been a thing for a long time, but putting all criminals on the same pedestal regardless of the crime is very unjust.

>And where did you get "muh 'if you step outside the line, you're dead' mentality"?

Because there is no distinction between crimes, and performing a "criminal act" takes away your rights, it means that you'd get the same punishment for stealing a napkin that you'd get for killing a thousand people.

>How does that emerge from the basic recognition that people who routinely make enemies are increasingly likely to get their shit kicked?

That doesn't factor into the statement at all, governmental laws are being discussed.

>How do you get that from the fact that people who consistently demonstrate that they cannot be trusted won't be trusted?

same as above

>The fact of the matter is that your reasoning is shit, your rhetoric is shit, and you seem to be in way over your head in this conversation

no.

also,

>muh subtle implications

wat

just say what you want to say, and unless the BO kicks you out you're fine. It's an anoonymoose tahitian-chinese coffee pot discussion board after all.

>>16974

>And, you were talking about self defense and that you could possibly take down and kill a single terrorist, to which I said that that wouldn't be so helpful if there were a thousand. The End. Nothing else in my post concerned you.

He didn't say that, I did. And I didn't say that either, you just have the reading comprehension of a small child. I explicitly talked about guns, for example, at least as far as self-defense is concerned. The bit about me being able to kill someone from the IS was in an entirely different context. Read again:

>>16835

This is what you said:

>What are you going to do with terrorists? Put your hands up? Because if you're averse to imprisoning them, then I doubt you'd kill them.

And this is what I said:

>I can only speak for myself, but I actually believe I could kill an IS-goon myself, with a more or less clear conscience.

Not only was there no mention of doing it with my bare hands, it is also clear from the context that I am talking about my psychological capability to kill someone.

Now, let me reiterate what you're saying here: We need prisons because otherwise, there's no way to deal with situations where thousands of terrorists are ganging up on one innocent person. Now, go ahead and explain to me how imprisoning them after the act is going to save that poor innocent soul.

>>16974

Reminder that on a libertarian board called /liberty/, there's more than one person running around with an ancap-flag. Call the news!

>Because there is no distinction between crimes,

Unbased assumption.

>and performing a "criminal act" takes away your rights,

Unbased assumption.

>it means that you'd get the same punishment for stealing a napkin that you'd get for killing a thousand people.

Based on premises that are unbased assumptions.

>>16980

>ancap calling someone else an autists

Hahah– Oh, it's an objectivist.

>>16991

I expected better from objectivists, to be honest. How can you disseminate Rands philosophy from a piece of shit book like Atlas Shrugged and still have zero reading comprehension?

>>16979

That's not an assumption, you literally wrote that.

>>16980

>not countering the points

>>16994

>atlas shrugged

>piece of shit

no.

>>17002

It's literally the worst book ever written. In an educated society it would only cause a suicide epidemic, not a political ideology.

>>17025

Interesing. Atlas Shrugged usually only ever inflicts asspain this intense on leftists, but I assume you're the ancap faggot from before and you just forgot your flag.

>>17032

Nope, he isn't me. I'm me. He is him.

I have read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged. Front to end. It was actually the first libertarian book I ever touched. At the time, I hated it, but now I see that it has its moments of brilliance. That doesn't the prose isn't fucking shit and that Rand isn't a moron for not making her book half as long and twice as concise. This rhymes. Fuck you.

>>16974

>are you retarded?

>blablablabla (line 1)

>blablablabla (line 2)

>as didnwkowhsndkdndjsi (line 3)

>laff

>no

>no

>It's relevant.

>yes.

>no

>wat

What was that about not refuting things, again?

>His post implied his karate moves would keep away all bad guys.

What part of "eventually, somebody will shoot you" implies that one guy is fighting a thousand terrorists with karate moves? What is this? Gun fu?

>I was telling him that he'd be dead if there were a thousand terrorists.

You're still framing this as a roving band of 1000 terrorists picking on one random person because reasons, and ignoring the part where we're talking about social organization. What part of your scenario seems like a realistic consideration? In what world do you expect 1000 terrorists to get together to pick on one lone undefended guy, then disband to avoid the social reprecussions of being fucking terrorists?

>means you're using a very biased and one-sided and rather rare example to showcase your point

Tort law? Is… biased? One-sided? Rare? Like, what the fuck are you even on about? I mean, that's grammatically coherent, but that sentence is far removed from reality. Tort law is abundant throughout the developed world, and many legal systems in the past were centered around it to the point of having nothing else.

>putting all criminals on the same pedestal regardless of the crime is very unjust.

For fuck's sake, nobody here is talking about the same consequences for every crime. Go re-read what I wrote about that. The fact that they're not a separate class of criminal doesn't mean that stealing a grape gets the same punishment as serial murder. It just means that you don't throw "terrorists" in a separate classification of criminals. They're still responsible for whatever damages they've caused, whether those are multiple deaths or a petty theft. If you are a tortfeasor (one who has harmed another person), then you are responsible for compensating the victim for the harm you have done. No need to create an elaborate taxonomy.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

>Because there is no distinction between crimes

Never said that. See above.

>and performing a "criminal act" takes away your rights,

Never said that, either, and that's not even remotely true. The man attacking you with a knife still has rights; you're just perfectly within yours to use violence up to and including killing him to end that attack.

>governmental laws are being discussed.

Where the hell did you get that impression? It sure as hell wasn't from anything I've said. The immorality and waste of prisons was mentioned, and you responded by asking what we do with terrorists, at which point we started discussing the social dynamics (not the government policy) of stopping "bad guys". You're trying to poke holes in the notion that a roving band of miscreants isn't long for this world by deciding that there are a thousand of them and only one of their victims, and I'm pointing out the utter absurdity of your approach.

Aren't you at least a little bit embarrassed to be trying to criticize things people never said? I mean, your interpretations are flirting with being the opposite of what you're responding to.

>>17002

>That's not an assumption, you literally wrote that.

No; you can't read. I defy you to identify precisely which statements directly indicate the ideas you're attributing to all these guys.

>>17033

To be fair, she was Russian. I'm given to understand that they like long-ass books, and she learned English as a second language. Doesn't make the book any better, obviously, but it does give some context.

>>17172

Why not just build a wall around Detroit and use that? the place is already a shit hole and I am sure half the existing population should be in prison for something anyway.

>>17034

>>17034

It's because objectivism is objectively retarded

>>17172

>The pessimistic view is that they will never survive the tribal stage and just turn the place into Heart of Darkness

Or turn into another successful Icelandic community.

>>17182

Now that idea I like. Until Air Force One crashes in the restricted zone and we need to send Snake Plissken to rescue him.

>>17297

How will you do that? There are no more WTC towers to land on.

>>17396

What about all those GM buildings?

>>16815

But I thought ancaps liked privatized prisons. I mean, if the ancap ideology is for privatized courts and police… why not prisons?

>>17172

Well, I believe even prisoners should be guaranteed basic human rights.

I agree, just hang the motherfuckers.

>>16807

Forced labor is an affordable alternative.

>>17620

Private police only enforce the NAP, unless there is a contractual agreement between all parties that they are allowed to do more.

Private courts only settle disputes. Their verdicts aren't even directly enforcable (only through things like boycotts or ruining your credit-rating), according to many ancaps. It's different if you regard retributive justice as part of the natural law, like Rothbard does, but then, you must be able to logically ascertain what the just punishment would be. That could be a mirror punishment, for example: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, that kind of stuff. Unless you locked someone up in your basement, locking you up will almost never mirror your crime.

Again, Rothbards principles here are hardly accepted by all ancaps. In fact, I rarely even see them discussed, and Orthobro, for example, completely rejects them.

Prisons can be seen as negotiating away your life as capital in payment for your crime. All life has value, therefore life can be bartered.

The big change I would make to current legal systems is to allow currency to be directly used to pay for a crime i.e pay the world health organization value of a life if you committed murder. Further, allowing exile gives additional freedom from force if a man cannot pay.

>>17039 It's called gun kata you belligerent baboon

>>17999

Answer the question.

>>17996

Most people are incarcerated for victim-less crimes like Marijuana possession.

Also in an AnCap society the funding for prisons would possibly come from things like insurance companies on a cost/risk assessment basis and thats only if the person decides to not settle with the victim via some other means.

>>18010

Tbh fam once individuals start paying for prisons I expect they will disappear and we will have money restitution / debt service / capital punishment / corporal punishment all the way

Prisons a shit

>>17621

Even if they voluntarily surrender those rights on a chance to create a better life than isolation?

>>17996

>all the funding comes from the government to handle the absurd amount of prisoners they incarcerate for minor offenses

>I know capitalism is behind this somehow…

gommies BTFO

>>18026

>all the funding comes from the government to handle the absurd amount of prisoners they incarcerate for minor offenses

>I know capitalism is behind this somehow…

yeah

lobbying is one hell of a drug, its the capitalist favourite :v)

>>18094

just note that if we shitposted on leftypol half as badly as you faggots do here we'd get bannu

>>18095

we make this board come alive :v), otherwise you would only suck eachother off

I agee prisions should not be used to create profit, but sadly capitalist don't, which is why the current system in america is this way

>>18098

There's nothing wrong with private prisons if it does a good job for a low price

But you knew that already

>>18102

Except the fact that they will be owned by people who just want to profit from it that won't do anything to stop the influx of inmates because its basically his property, instead of a workers cooperative made up of people who actually want to help and reform people, whose form of ownership is not based on profiting on an economic point of view via explotiting the guards, cooks, and the population who is incarcerated but by a social profit one, consisting of actually reforming society, not making prisions a living hell in order to promote re-incarceration and so on

But you knew that already, didn't you?

>>18110

If the government was in favour of the kind of reforms you're talking about I'm sure the private sector would provide them

Maybe you don't like the politicians-neither do we- but that's another issue

>>18116

funny because the private sector has pushed for exactly the opposie of those reforms

https://youtu.be/6gVekyXw_mw?t=36s

>>18116

Anyway how is a random idiot prison guard supposed to know what's in the interest of 'social profit'?

Even if he gives a shit (most public sector workers don't) he won't know what to do. I mean should he be firm with prisoners or gentle? Should prisoners be fed plum pudding or humble pie?

There's an argument that says politicians are supposed to figure these things out: given that social profit concerns the whole of society. After all they are the ones accountable to voters and they have best access to information about what works, and what people want

[There's another argument that says a market mechanism can work things out. But I can't be fucked r n]

>>18123

Oh wow how dare they disagree with you about what a good prison should be :/

Campaign finance is overrated anyway. Most of the stuff you don't like is desired organically by the public. They want zero tolerance and always have

>>18125

Btw I didn't watch the video yet

>Oh wow how dare they disagree with you about what a good prison should be :/

Oh wow!, now that you mention it, its indeed very silly of me to belive that guards abusing inmates, or providing poor living conditions to inmates is bad :/

their model soooo much better

>>18131

I doubt anyone is putting out ads that say guards should abuse inmates

Some people do want poor living conditions. Or at least they don't think good living conditions for prisoners should be a government spending priority.

Another thing is it's not always in the interest of people who run private prisons to advocate for worse conditions. If politicians decide to give less money since they aren't asking for as good conditions, that won't necessarily lead to a higher profit margin.

Profit margin is probably formed by cutting costs and improving efficiency without delivering too low a standard and failing criteria set out by the state: regardless of how high those criteria were set

>>18132

I don't, because guards are trained to be hostile towards inmates

people who do not want better living conditions for inmates are dumb and dont understand how better living conditions and a proper reforming systems helps people, pretty much like some people belive tough gun laws lead to a more peaceful society

if prisions are set in a way where people who labour there are training psycologist, sociologists or police officers then the amount of money neede to run them is far lower, its also lower if inmates were forced to grow their own foodcook it, fabricate their own furniture and clothes and even repair the prision themselves,

the average person do not want to spend money on prisions because of the way they are funded and administrated, not because "hurr durr those dumb niggers deserved it" spooky as fuck way of tought

a prision aimed for economic porfit, no matter what way it is administrated or how low the profit is will always be exploitative by nature, because it is their profit to promote the cycle of criminal activity inside and outside the prision so that inmates commit crime again once they are outside, increasing the chances of going inside again

>>18132

I don't, because guards are trained to be hostile towards inmates

people who do not want better living conditions for inmates are dumb and dont understand how better living conditions and a proper reforming systems helps people, pretty much like some people belive tough gun laws lead to a more peaceful society

if prisions are set in a way where people who labour there are training psycologist, sociologists or police officers then the amount of money neede to run them is far lower, its also lower if inmates were forced to grow their own foodcook it, fabricate their own furniture and clothes and even repair the prision themselves,

the average person do not want to spend money on prisions because of the way they are funded and administrated, not because "hurr durr those dumb niggers deserved it" spooky as fuck way of tought

a prision aimed for economic porfit, no matter what way it is administrated or how low the profit is will always be exploitative by nature, because it is their profit to promote the cycle of criminal activity inside and outside the prision so that inmates commit crime again once they are outside, increasing the chances of going inside again

>>18136

>a prision aimed for economic porfit, no matter what way it is administrated or how low the profit is will always be exploitative by nature

This act from the premise that "exploitation", is by definition wrong. Now that's spooky.

>because it is their profit to promote the cycle of criminal activity inside and outside the prision so that inmates commit crime again once they are outside, increasing the chances of going inside again

Conclusion doesn't follow from premise. It is in the financial interest of a doctor that I am sick, this doesn't imply that doctors are all secretly infecting us with diseases to make us come back.

>>18136

>a prision aimed for economic porfit, no matter what way it is administrated or how low the profit is will always be exploitative by nature,

watch vid related, then kill yourself as retribution for exploiting us for links to arguments debunking your bullshit

>>18135

>people who do not want better living conditions for inmates are dumb and dont understand how better living conditions and a proper reforming systems helps people

Or maybe they just don't care about reforming criminals, and would rather see that money flow to people who haven't fucked up. Trust me, I know about how reformation works. When you have a petty robber, someone who constantly gets into bar fights or a pickpocket, then I'm all for helping them function in society. Not so much for serial rapists, kidnappers or murderers.

>pretty much like some people belive tough gun laws lead to a more peaceful society

This was uncalled for.

>>18143

YOU MEAN I HAVE TO WORK

I CAN'T JUST GET FREE SHIT

DASS SLAVRY

- t. world's first socialist

>>18151

Meh probably out of context but the quote is true

>>18151

YOU MEAN I CANNOT STARVE WORKERS

I CAN'T JUST EXPLOIT THEM

DASS GOMMUNISM

- t. world's first anacrap

>>18218

No m8 that's me when I look at high wage since lots of investors capitalist society

If there's a big minimum wage I be like

SO THEY THINK LOW WAGE IS EXPLOITATION

THEY RATHER HAVE NO WAGE AT ALL

DASS SO RETARDED

>>18250

>the only reason workers would starve in a free market if that they can't cope up with the explotation

>>18278

Classic leftypol

Does not even read his opponent's arguments before shouting 'exploitation' in an attempt to win by saying exploitation as much as possible