/liberty/ - Liberty

>>8843

A desire for freedom

Not everyone can afford to live in a fantasy land of atomized individuals.

>>8844

Sorry, I forgot that slavery is freedom.

>>8848

How exactly is it impractical not to enslave people?

>>8854

>equality = slavery

>>8848

>Implying the belief that the individual should not be constrained by the will of the "collective" (or more accurately, those who claim to speak for it) is denying the existence of social relationships

>>8859

>forcing compliance at the point of a gun = slavery

>giving people preferential treatment if they don't perform as well = equality

>>8863

The definition of collectivism that I'm aware of is "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it". In other words, it would be acceptable under collectivism to forcibly take someone's private property for the good of "the group/community".

Could you please explain to me the practical difference between "forced collectivization" and "collectivism"? Because in no way is privatization mutually exclusive with voluntary cooperation. It is, in fact, encouraged by every libertarian thinker that I've ever heard of.

>>8862

>forcing people to free their slaves at the "point" of a gun = slavery

>>>/monarchy/

>>8860

This.

>>8863

>Collectivism is not some evil conspiracy, it's simply the view that the individual is ultimately inseparable from their community.

This is an entirely meaningless concept. Of course you can separate an individual from his community. He will be influenced by this, just as he has been influenced by his community prior to that, but this is not exactly a brilliant insight, it's something everyone understand intuitively.

>It holds that the only way to understand the individual is through the community, while individualists hold that to understand the community you first have to understand the individual, in void.

And this is where you are wrong. Individualists don't look at the individual in a void. They can very well look at how an individual behaves under certain circumstances or in relation to certain people, the difference between them and the collectivists is that they will look at the individual while doing this, not at the entire community. This is a much more reasonable approach than what you describe as collectivism. Looking at an entire system to deduce what a single component of it is like is an unnecessarily complex endeavor that will more than likely lead to you missing a number of details about the component that have not been expressed on the macro-scale.

By the way, a quick glance at wikipedia proves you wrong. Individualism and collectivism are terms with a variety of meanings. We're not idiots because we used a definition you don't know, you are.

>>8866

>Voluntary cooperation is slavery

Wasted double-dubs.

>>8865

This. Voluntary association is one of the most important ideas in libertarianism.

>>8867

Still better than the shitty biased definition >>8865 uses.

>>8872

>coercion is voluntary

Try leaving your mom's basement sometimes, kiddo.

>>8873

Do you think employers threaten people into working for them?

>>8873

How exactly is that definition biased? As far as I can tell, it's exactly what most nationalists are saying: That the community is worth more than the individuals in it, or that the individuals are worth nothing without their community.

>>8874

Seriously, this leftist view is so utterly ridiculous it's hard to describe. Basically, giving people the alternatives of working or the fairly distant possibility of starving is bad. What this means, however, is that OTHER people will have to be forced to work in order to feed you, whether you want to work or not. The alternative given to them is being imprisoned, assaulted or murdered or working for you.

So apparently, leftists see the choice between working or the distant possibility of not having anything to eat as inhuman, but the choice between working or being assaulted as completely awwright. I can't wrap my head around this sick, twisted logic.

>>8867

>wage slavery

>voluntary

pick one

>>8902

State of nature:

A) Produce your own necessities

B) Die

Somebody comes along and offers a job:

A) Produce your own necessities

B) Die

C) Produce more efficiently under possibly more favorable conditions

Egads! The exploitation! Somebody point a gun at him and make him give me his stuff!

>>8965

This

>>8968

Stef pls

>>8969

Forgot my embed

>>8863

>the only way to understand the individual is through the community

What does this even mean, and why do you think it is true?

>>8848

We do it all the time. Most of our decisions are individualistic.

>>8844

You cannot have freedom in an involuntary collective

>>8937

a) The peasants work the kings RIGHTFULLY OWNED LAND, which he lets them live on!

B)die

Egad! The exploitation! Someone point a gun at his head and make him give me his stuff!

>>9350

>The peasants work the kings RIGHTFULLY OWNED LAND, which he lets them live on!

He doesn't own the land rightfully. That's homesteading 101, you idiot.

>>9351

Filthy commie freedom hater!

>>9369

Also known as the LABOR theory of property.

>>9374

Certainly not the kind of labor theory you stupid commies have in mind, a the lockean theory is actually applicable without giving you a headache.

>>9377

Communism is stateless.

>>9381

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

>>8863

>Collectivism is not some evil conspiracy, it's simply the view that the individual is ultimately inseparable from their community.

It is an evil conspiracy to replace individual moral, ethics, and free will with subservience to a power structure.

>>9471

THE GOYIM KNOW SHUT IT DOWN

>>9472

>THE GOYIM KNOW SHUT IT DOWN

I'm actually Jewish, so nice try & shana tova. But seriously, collectivism is the philosophy of cultural leaders who want power over the minds and thoughts of others, and the morally bankrupt community members who don't want to bear personal responsibility for the crimes they commit against the earth & other humans because "everyone else is doing it."

>>8843

Usially faggots who feel the need to conform to their social circles in order to maintain their friendship status because they have to leech social interaction from others for energy.

Meanwhile my Anarchist/Liberty-oriented friends and I drink and smoke danke weed in our small friend circles and enjoy talking about how shitty the police are.

>>8859

There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and making them equal

>>10194

Capitalism does neither

>>10205

Capitalism doesn't do anything. It's a concept, not an individual actor.

>>10225

It's an economic system you tard

>>8843

>What drives people to collectivism, /liberty/?

Rational self interest

>>10237

A system is a concept. Many real world processes might adhere to a conceptual system, but the system itself does not exist in the real world.

Liberty, government, and evil are all concepts. They do not do anything. They might appear to have effects on the real world. Many things might embody these concepts. A post office worker might embody one service of government, but government does not literally exist. It's a concept that can be understood, but government does not "do" anything. Just like self-interest doesn't do anything. It's a concept which describes a strong factor in human behavior.

>>10239

Collectivism is only in the rational self-interest of the inept, those frightened of honest competition, and those who can not survive being held to a high standard of moral and economic responsibility. Hence, leftists are collectivists.

>>10260

>le ebin porkie comic

>>>/leftypol/

>>10281

>It's in the rational self interest of the have-nots to violently take everything from the haves.

It's not in their self-interest if they can survive off of honest work and have some human decency.

>>10285

>The fact is that most people around the word can barely survive off honest work if at all.

I disagree. Most unskilled labor is something that pretty much anyone can do. I really think you're underestimating the average human being, or rather, overestimating what's demanded of you in a free market (probably a little of both though). A lot of jobs are, when it gets right down to it, trivial to anyone who's actually willing to do the work, which I think accounts for a majority of people.

>It's in the self interest of anyone threatened by homelessness, starvation, or lack of medical care to destroy the system that causes these threats by any means necessary.

Not the anon that you're replying to, but "the system that causes these threats" is the government and their insistence on interfering in the affairs of the free market.

The free market increases the overall quality of life over time, meaning that it's in the rational self-interest of the have-nots to bring about a free market and keep it going as long as possible. Killing the "haves" (which presumably includes people like doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. as well as entrepreneurs, since they tend to be pretty well-paid) would just result in a very short-term benefit followed by way shittier conditions than they faced before. Hell, the short-term benefit might not even be that great, since they just killed a lot of the people behind all the goods and services they could've enjoyed.

And as an aside, if these people really are incapable of honest work and basic human decency, why the hell would anyone want them to successfully stage a violent uprising?

>>10286

Five star post, anon.

>>10286

How often do you have to pray to the Free Market to be part of this earthly paradise?

>>10313

Your mother is a whore.

>>10287

Thank you, anon. You're too kind.

>>10313

Once before lunch and once before bed, each time facing Austria.

>>10319

top kek

At the end of the day, it ultimately varies from person to person. Some feel that the need for individual freedom isn't as important as the ease of life that accompanies having a government take care of a number of things. Some perceive that they get the good end of the deal in collective societies, and simply act out of self-interest (ironic, since such people tend to chastise such a concept). And some may feel that the only way to solve larger-scale problems is to rope everyone into helping solve them, regardless of whether they want to or not. There's plenty of other things as well. I'm scratching the surface here.

>>10362

I think that's what makes them think a big government might be a good idea, but I can't imagine it drives them to communism or national socialism.

I'm not really worried about the retarded commies or the uppity /pol/ nazis, those retards are the softest target a target can be. More worried about the inevitable FEMA crackdown and war between the patriots and the federal government. That one's going to be bloody as fuck.

>>8843

>>8844

>>8859

>>8863

>>8866

>>8873

>>8902

>>9350

>>9357

For those collectivists in the thread, there exists two sorts of collectivization: forced collectivization and voluntary collectivization. The former of which espouses the idea of freedom through slavery. That is why freedom is slavery for them. Freedom in the minds of most collectivists is a different sort of freedom. To be free means to be independent and in control. But as an example, a neo-liberal would say "freedom to not get shot so ban guns" "freedom from individual responsibility so ban certain foods" "freedom from classes so redistribute the wealth by forcefully taking it from people" This is their freedom. It is a negative freedom. A freedom that frees through the restriction and dependence of others. Equality to them works in a similar way. bring others down to bring others up.

This is only one way people twist concepts of liberty into the opposite

>>10550

here's a video

>>10551

And relative collectivist cultures and individualist cultures.

>>10550

Interesting observations, brah.

>>10550

>>10551

>>10555

Why do you faggots insist collectivism and individualism are mutually exclusive?

Haven't you heard of stirner?

>>10584

We need something to demonize otherwise people wouldn't eat our bullshit.

>>10368

I can only think of the anguish on their faces when they understand what they did was wrong.

Most of them would commit suicide anyway.

>>10584

>Why do you faggots insist collectivism and individualism are mutually exclusive?

I have a useful skill, coupled with a strong worth ethic (to the point of negatively effecting my health/relationships). My skill took two decades of hard work and lots of personal sacrifice to master. Wasted the best years of my life mastering it. The skill is in very high demand by society, so currently I am rewarded more than the guy that sits around all day and does nothing.

I am not rewarded as much as I should be, because crony capitalism is bullshit, but libertarians would end the current monetary system that screws workers from getting the full value out of their labor..

However my fear about collectivism is that because it is such a demanded skill, I will still be forced to work constantly but not be given ANY reward (relative to the hypothetical parasite). This fear stems from reading /leftypol/ where a bunch of NEETS sit around and fantasize about how awesome it will be to not have to pay for the things that I currently make. Well, the flip side of that is *I* don't get paid for doing it.

>>10584

Considering collectivism is the idea that the good of the collective takes priority over the good of the individual(s) in it, whereas individualism says the precise opposite, it seems perfectly clear to me that the two are mutually exclusive.

Unless there's something obvious I'm missing, two things cannot simultaneously take priority over each other.

>>11750

If you don't mind me asking, what's your skill? I'm just curious, since it took such a long period of dedicated effort and sacrifice.

>>11751

>If you don't mind me asking, what's your skill? I'm just curious, since it took such a long period of dedicated effort and sacrifice.

Professional game dev.

It's a $100 billion/year industry that grows by double digits every year, so it shouldn't be surprising that such a profitable industry attracts top-tier talent. The best coders in the world are game coders, the best engineers in the world are the ones figuring out how to make the next line of GPUs for the next-gen systems. Etc.

To talk about the sacrifice angle, you literally watch guys come into the industry in their early 20s, and leave 5 years later and 50 pounds heavier having wrecked their personal lives. I "got ahead" of that by being good enough at my job that I can extract some quality-of-life concessions in exchange for my participation on a given project.

But so many things will be replaced by games in my lifetime. They are already using games to train surgeons, teach children, etc. Plus its replacing essentially all entertainment media – the next big thing in Hollywood is 'interactive movies" and that is games.

My specific complaint is that most of the money isn't going to the creators, and this is due to the broken monetary system and how investment works. But as I said libertarianism would fix that. However, people put up with the health/life risks because at the end of the day it's still a fun job with decent pay (depending on where you work). There are places like Epic where you could actually become a millionaire as a worker (…while the investors become billionaires). But still… no other job asks you to work 80 hour weeks for half a year on the vague promise of profit share which 9/10 times never happens.

So I go on /leftypol/ and read about how under volunteerism game creators like me will make a bunch of games for free, because let's face it if you are on 8ch you might also be a gamer. And I point blank ask "why should I? fuck that I'll go push an elevator button if it's all the same reward" and the answer always ends up with me being against the wall when the revolution comes :) And this informs my impression of collectivism.

>>11752

Alright, it makes perfect sense that it'd take so long to master something that well. That's very impressive. Glad your hard work paid off.

>So I go on /leftypol/ and read about how under volunteerism game creators like me will make a bunch of games for free

To be fair, I think "the best programmer in the world gets paid the same as every random store clerk" is a bit too retarded even for the commies around here. But yes, the gap would generally be far smaller. And also everyone would generally be poorer and things would suck a lot more, but that almost goes without saying.

>>11765

>To be fair, I think "the best programmer in the world gets paid the same as every random store clerk" is a bit too retarded even for the commies around here. But yes, the gap would generally be far smaller. And also everyone would generally be poorer and things would suck a lot more, but that almost goes without saying.

Well, the consensus on /leftypol/ seems to be the abolition of money. So there would be no "paid" whatsoever. People would just work. The problem is that the time/life investment in certain skills is only attractive when you factor in the monetary reward. I just happen to have experience with one extreme of this.

>Alright, it makes perfect sense that it'd take so long to master something that well. That's very impressive. Glad your hard work paid off.

Thanks! I'm very happy in the games industry because I am a gamer and I love the medium. And I am the sort of person that would shoot myself in the head over doing something I considered a waste of my life. Before games I briefly worked for a Tech Giant we all know and love, and I hated every minute of it because I just didn't care.

But part of the reason game devs are so easily exploited is "What, you need decent working conditions and fair compensation? You don't want to work 60-80 hours a week with no overtime pay? But you're making games, you should do it for the love!" and sadly nerds tend to fall for this not realizing how much money they are generating for someone else.

I feel like communism would make this situation worse, not better.

Anyway, just this anon's perspective.

>>11766

>Well, the consensus on /leftypol/ seems to be the abolition of money. So there would be no "paid" whatsoever.

Are you certain it wasn't just a few retards in a shitty thread? I've never really gone to /leftypol/ in any significant capacity, but I like to think they're better than that.

>I'm very happy in the games industry because I am a gamer and I love the medium.

That sounds like a pretty ideal place to be, then. I'm still in University myself, but from what I understand, not everyone gets to both make a lot of money and work in their desired field, so your position is certainly something to be proud of.

>"What, you need decent working conditions and fair compensation? You don't want to work 60-80 hours a week with no overtime pay? But you're making games, you should do it for the love!"

I honestly think the problems with the current gaming industry run deeper than that, mostly having to do with how shitty the economy is in-general. Is that really such a widespread problem, though? It seems like something that a few nerds would fall for, but not large populations.

>I feel like communism would make this situation worse, not better.

I think you'll be right at home on /liberty/, then. Aside from the gommie shitposters.

>>11768

>Are you certain it wasn't just a few retards in a shitty thread? I've never really gone to /leftypol/ in any significant capacity, but I like to think they're better than that.

I pop over from time to time and weigh in on a thread. I browse all the politics boards. Go over and engage them, see what they say for yourself.

> Is that really such a widespread problem, though?

Exploitation in the game industry? Oh yeah. Incredibly widespread. Nothing has changed since the days of the EASpouse scandal. It's actually rare to find a company that doesn't abuse its workers, especially when you look at the AAA market segment.

Obviously, there are a myriad of problems with the game industry with their own specific causes and genetic legacies. Everything from how digital distribution broke the publishing model, to how licenses work for consoles, to the costs of game development which increases at a geometric rate with each new game generation, to the education problem. And indeed how investment currently works in corporate crony capitalism. But worker exploitation is the one that happens to be relevant to a lot of discussions on these politics boards.

What are you studying btw?

>>11752

>Professional game dev.

When did your life go so wrong?

> I'll go push an elevator button if it's all the same reward

There's no monetary reward in communism, everyone have free, unlimited access to the articles of consumption. If for you, pushing elevator buttons is as fulfilling as making games, you are free to do it.

>>11765

He's lying though, game devs are the scum of the computer world. They don't know shit. Video games are some of the worst pieces of software. And it's super exploitive too, companies just hire young people who still obsess over video games and exploit their passions to make them work like a slave, and after a few years they are fired and replaced by a new generation of idiots. You have to be a special kind of retard to waste your time on professional game development.

>>11781

Don't forget the trash-tier to nonexistent project management, corruption, cronyism and the fraudsters and hacks who rest on their laurels from two decades ago.

>They don't know shit.

Most of them do notice the shit conditions and bail from the "industry". It's no coincidence that the average game dev career lasts for 3 to 5 years which just happens to coincide with the length of the average AAA dev cycle.

>>11783

Why couldn't an entrepreneur start a game development company and not treat his employees like shit?

>>11792

Or why hasn't one yet. I'm guessing too much government regulation and barriers to investment.

>>11781

>Video games are some of the worst pieces of software.

And you are speaking from your extensive software development experience, right…?

>>11792

>Why couldn't an entrepreneur start a game development company and not treat his employees like shit?

People do all the time. The problem is it's very hard to get up-front capital unless you are from the investment banking world. Crowd funding started to change this, but then it got turned into another marketing tool by the people who didn't need it.

>>11798

More or less this.

>>11792

Probably because the incentives and realities of the industry push it in that direction.

>>11798

Where there any people who predicted the bullshit we're seeing with crowdfunding now? Because all the abuse potential seems obvious in hindsight.

>>11813

>Where there any people who predicted the bullshit we're seeing with crowdfunding now? Because all the abuse potential seems obvious in hindsight.

Well I'm the game dev guy on this thread, and I absolutely was on /v/ telling people to not spend money on what were (to me) obvious scams. Because in my mind "there is no way on earth those inexperienced guys can make that game for that amount" but it's hard for players to do that calculation.

And I absolutely warned them it would set a precedent that you can get rich off crowdfunding by scamming players.

But humans believe what they want to believe, and it's hard to make these sorts of arguments stick on anonymous message boards. If the question is why didn't journos publish such ideas, its because it was their friends profiting from the crowdfunding scams. (hence gamergate)

>>11814

But there are other "abuses" if you want to call it that: People like Mr. Shitface used crowdfunded cash as colleteral for loans used on other projects and Inafune funneled investor cash through the MN9 Kickstarter.

And there are things other than scamming: Look at the shit like Pictures for Sad Children or overhyped thrash like the Exploding Kittens card game.

Good thing I never backed anything but Delta Green

>>11814

Consider it a bad investment made by bankers (consumers). They'll either continue to make bad investments and drop out of the market, or begin ti make better investments in the future after further research.

>>11797

Yes. But ask any non-gamer and they will confirm it.

>>11792

Because that's not how capitalism work.

>>11813

http://www.dmytri.info/m-c-lol/

>>11849

>http://www.dmytri.info/m-c-lol/

Wow, this guy is a complete tool.

>realizes capitalism keeps the world going

>realizes he wanted to do away with it

>still pushes collective property and collective wealth

Do these people have a screw or two loose in their brains? Or are they stupid on purpose?

I have never heard an argument for commie shit and altruism that was not a strangled form of altruism and repeating dry statements like "Ooooh selfishness is bad" and then when you ask them why, there is always

1. everyone says so

2. muh jesus/buddha/imaginary skyperson/formerly alive or dead relative/friend/accomplice willed it

3.ooooh gains for all! "why, anon, you don't want others to profit?

4. goto 1.

I get some people are hacks and try to get useful idiots (which is like 99.99999% of the earth's population) and that some people just stop at a certain conceptual level, but HOW THE FUCK CAN THESE PEOPLE NOT THINK? Are they really so fucking stupid that they'd give shit up?

If I was like that, I'd probably slit my throat and be done with it.

The irony will wash over their heads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc

>>11851

Maybe you should read some book sometimes.

>>11853

To what effect?

>>11853

Maybe you should stop being a pretentious cunt.

>>11853

"Why haven't you accepted cucumberinassism!? If you read 'stick a cucumber up your butt' by Joe MacFuckwit, you'd understand perfectly!"

If an idea is good, you should be able to explaim the concept and use the books as supplements rather than link everyone to the book from the start.

>>11855

To understand that communism has nothing to do with altruism.

>>11861

Care to explain? Sharing the wealth of the world with everyone equally sounds like a fuckload of altruism to me.

>>11870

You only see it as that because you have a fundamentally different understanding of the world. In their view, it's not altruism, simply the self interest of the proletariat. Facing the exploitation by the bourgeoisie and the alienating nature of wage labour, the only way out is classless society, which can be achieved only by abolishing private property.

>>11870

Are you suggesting that you'd willingly give away a year's salary that's supposed to feed/clothe/etc. You to charity? That you're willing to live in a shitty apartment with no entertainment on an extremely tight no-fun allowed budget in the name of altruism?

Of course not, you think you can have your cake and eat it. The reality is you're robbing someone and giving the things they worked hard to create to someone else. Except now they don't have any incentive to work for more than subsistence, much in the same way farmers rarely worked for more than subsistence levels for their family because the rest would be taken away for the state under the USSR. There's a reason food shortages were a thing.

>>11879

My wife remembers soviet times, and she was just telling me that there were YEARS in the 1980s where you would walk into a store and there would be nothing on the shelves. Literally nothing. Just a shopkeeper in an empty room. Or it would only be stocked with a single product (ballpoint pens) – whatever was overproduced that year – and that's it.