No.144773[Last 50 Posts]
NOTE: IF YOU DISLIKE POLITICS, DON'T HESITATE TO HIDE THIS THREAD JUST LIKE YOU MIGHT HIDE THE FAP THREAD. BELIEVE IT OR NOT WE HAVE RULES: BLATANT SHITPOSTING, FLAMING, OR BAITING IS NOT TOLERATED AND YOU WILL BE MET WITH ACTION. CONSIDER THIS YOUR FIRST AND LAST WARNING.
This thread is for the civil
discussion of anything towards a political nature, especially political ideology and current affairs.
Previous thread: http://archive.is/3wlfT
Don't know where you are politically? Take the test! Keep in mind that these tests are just quick glances to where you might be politically, so do not take them too seriously.
>Where do you stand politically and why?
>Where do you receive your news? Do you trust them?
>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level? Should there be change, if any?
Once again, please keep the topic and rules in mind. Political discussion among peers, especially fellow wizards, is extremely important as we must keep each other informed of the world around us and be free of ignorance. Keep the atmosphere welcoming to wizards of all conviction!
CNN sperging out as usual. People still fed up, non-mainstream news sources booming. Not much else going for now.
Did hear Germany recently passing same-sex marriage the other day, although honestly I already assumed that was already the case.
it is a topic like any other, please utilize the hide feature if you dislike politics or at least take your complaint to /meta/ where it belongs
I pay zero attention to media.
I actually get all of my current events knowledge from history books, like decades after they happen.
Good way to get a good perspective.
So do you think the holocaust was real and the US won world war 2?
As much as I agree with that approach, sadly there are revisionists on both sides that twist history into their favor. Take current events right now, people might interpret the present completely differently depending on which way the zeitgeist blows and that is horrifying.
It doesn't matter what I think.
But yes, the US won the fucking shit out of WW2. Strongest economic power in the world by far for 80+ years after the war? Not to mention not being damaged at all by the conflict. I'd call that winning. The US also won WW1, since tonnes and tonnes of gold and silver reserves from european empires were sent to the US in exchange for weapons to blow themselves up with. The financial capital of the world became New York.
As for the holocaust, there was a systematic approach to eliminating people based on race and perceived 'genetic quality' in Nazi Germany. If Hitler hadn't been such a goofball he'd have eventually killed them all. The exact quantity that he managed to kill before he self-destructed is relatively unimportant. Besides, he went for wizards before he went for jews.
Careful not to spam. At least post some with either your thoughts, analysis, what happens, or any form of commentary rather than dump file after file.
My english is too bad for thoughts or analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience.
How do i solve mega corporations sucking my country dry because of a monopoly? My countries taxes go to useless government officials. We cant remove the government yet.
We still havent fucked up though as our money has not inflated yet
what country? what state-favored mega corporations and monopoly is being reinforced by the gov?
You can't. If you do something like a democratic revolution, the US send in weapons to the current power structure (or a new, more despotic power structure) to maintain the status quo.
You're a colony of American corporations, you can't do anything but get stomped on.
That said, you could try a democratic revolution, but you will end up like venezuala, or iran, or columbia, or cuba, or any one of the hundreds of countries that the US has stomped on.
guess the best he can do is go full warlock and take advantage of the situation as much as possible, black markets, bribes, it's a losing game when you're against military intervention that even the American people are so tired of but can't really vote against because all major parties are warmongers
same corrupt governments, all around the world. And they blame it all on the corporations…
It's almost as if it's the corporations that profit from the cheap exports. Imagine if today, oil was found on some island in the middle of nowhere, let's say east timor. The corporations could make a lot of money if the population there was convinced to let the oil resources go to foreign business.
If they don't agree, then you can just give weapons to a nearby country to pacify them, say, Indonesia.
The corporations are at the helm, it's pretty clear because of the results of the actions. Every corrupt government action results in the enrichment of the corporations.
So let's blame the government for daring to be controlled by money.
In reality it's everyone's fault. The corporations for lobbying and controlling the government, the government for being greedy little pricks who are after power at any cost, and in the people for not dusting off the guillotines and making crowns roll in the gutter by the dozens.
Then you compare it to governments like sweden or norway that are massively less controlled by corporations and the difference in living standards for the average person is outstanding.
Or one interesting example; compare healthcare in corporate america with, say, Cuba. Healthcare in cuba is better than in America. It's cheaper and more effective.
But the insurance and massively funded medical industries make less money! This is impossible in a free market, since if you give a corporation more money you get a better service, this is a rule of the market.
The corporations are not american though and i wish it was american. Basically we are getting sold shit by greedy capitalist of our own.
How do we solve this? We dont allow foreign investors in our country.
>>144885>It's almost as if it's the corporations that profit from the cheap exports
…who in turn share with the corrupt government.
>The corporations could make a lot of money if the population there was convinced to let the oil resources go to foreign business.
and so would the government officials that orchestrate the whole damn thing.
>The corporations are at the helm, it's pretty clear because of the results of the actions. Every corrupt government action results in the enrichment of the corporations.
which again in turn goes back to the corrupt government officials that really are
at the helm, because they've been democratically elected to wield such power by the masses. What can a corporation do? Lobby? make threats? The politicians have the guns, the army, the goddamn bombs
, they can do whatever the hell they want to do.
>So let's blame the government for daring to be controlled by money.
well I'm glad you understand.
>In reality it's everyone's fault. The corporations for lobbying and controlling the government, the government for being greedy little pricks who are after power at any cost, and in the people for not dusting off the guillotines and making crowns roll in the gutter by the dozens.
And I absolutely and completely agree with you. But when everyone turns a blind eye to the government and focuses it all exclusively on "da ebil corporations", they know they can't criticize the government because they've been indoctrinated that way. Disobey a corporation, and you are just banned from their product/service, if at all. Disobey a government, and suddenly you find yourself in a gulag unable to post social media updates on the latest iPhone while ranting and raving against Capitalism.
It amazes me how you already know the answer, that it is the unholy combination of government and
government-colluding corporations that cause such blights in the world. Yet corporations as a whole are always attacked, as if it's inevitable, as if businessmen are somehow compelled to use violence when violence just isn't that profitable in the long-term for everybody. Capital doesn't kill, violence does. And only the state and friends benefit from violence, since that's all they know and all they ever use to acquire power. Let's cut that government power supply first, that's what needs to be done, not abandoning a system that multiplies resources instead of dividing them (Capitalism).
>>144886>Then you compare it to governments like sweden or norway that are massively less controlled by corporations and the difference in living standards for the average person is outstanding.
oh yes, Sweden, a country with a strong history of classically liberal free market capitalism, a small population, and a ethnically-homogenous European demographic (for now) is exactly comparable to the 300 Million and growing demographically-mixed ethnic Frankenstein that is the US of A. Sweden will learn what it feels the hard way. Oh boy and Norway, a state practically fueled by oil money, that's comparable as well.
Those countries are quick to boast their treasures, but it's running out fast. It's just not sustainable, and that's with their current population base
. Have you seen their tax rates? Well over 50%+! That's unimaginable in the states, speaking at a societal level. With that high tax rates to drive off businesses and working people, and that much benefits there would be absolutely no way the U.S. can sustain itself. You consume more than you create, and everybody starves, everything collapses.
>Healthcare in cuba is better than in America. It's cheaper and more effective.
The healthcare problem in America was precisely a result of government intervention, not government absence. Socialize costs, privatize profit: when you enslave doctors and nurses by rule of the state, the government-connected companies as granted exclusive privileges by the state can charge whatever hell they want with the prices if Uncle Sam pays the bill, especially via insurance shenanigans. Government knows this, they're the ones passing the laws, and they're the ones getting their own cut of the corporate pie from their best corporate friends.
People joke about our high costs in medical equipment, but if one actually dived down to examine why
it's like that, you'd find nothing at the bottom but government games between their connected corporations together with laws, regulations, unnecessary requirements for this and that made to specifically choke down competition and rake in the big buck for the officials in charge. It's a real mess in Healthcare and I speak about this as someone who visits the doctor regularly due to a host of problems.
Cuba, on the other hand, where healthcare is so good people risk life and limb through dangerous waters to actively get away from it, now that's on a whole nother level of customer service. I woldn't say Cuba is exactly cheaper unless you like shady and suspicious island doctors and long waiting lists. The best of the best doctors are available much sooner with the best equipment in the states, even people from communist Canada drive down the border for treatment.
It's just not comparable, none of those are. In terms of scale, service, and the mechanics behind them they're all on completely different levels of self-destruction just at different rates or even already destroyed like Cuba living as a zombified communist regime.
>But the insurance and massively funded medical industries make less money! This is impossible in a free market, since if you give a corporation more money you get a better service, this is a rule of the market.
Again, you're not wrong when you said massively-funded insurance and medical industries are the problem. More government invention though, in charge of people's lives
as if they're the judge arbiters of death themselves? You'd have more people dying on wait lists and bureaucracy, understaffed clinics, hospitals, and stressed out statistically depressed doctors doing 5-second diagnosis as mandated by the state to see as many people they can per hour instead of proper 1-on-1s with patients on complex medical issues.
Just the amount of old people clogging up the system alone would crush it in mere seconds – and this is supposed to be all nationalized? I hate waiting on the doctor's office so much, I'd sooner die of old age than see the actual goddamn doctor again.
>>144887>we are getting sold shit by greedy capitalist of our own.>We dont allow foreign investors in our country.
that doesn't sound very capitalistic to me. I think greedy capitalists are the least of your concerns when it sounds like greedy officials are what's specifically propping up your industry if they're the ones imposing that much laws against foreign investment.
coup? rebellion? running away? seems like you're just out of luck if your own country is willing to imprison its own citizens that much. Going to be hard to change their minds though, seeing as their convenient capitalist bogeymen just means all the more excuse to make government even stronger at an attempt to counter it. Won't work. Never does.
I wish you luck wizzie
I dont think the government is to blame. Its the capitalist. Thats it.
The sell worthless shit and the guvment allows it.
Look up operation Ajax.
Disobey Anglo-Persian, get your government overthrown.
What you don't seem to get is that I don't differentiate between government and corporate power. They are one and the same. Dismantling corporate power is the same as dismantling government power since they rely on the same mechanisms.
The reason I rail on corporate power more than governmental power is because it is the corporations that benefit. They are the ones who have no responsibilities but to themselves. The very structure of a corporation, the very nature of capitalism is the fundamental assertion "Fuck everyone but me".
Governments have no fundamental assertion but governance. How the governance is done depends on external factors; for example, application of military force, influence of corporate power, control of the population.
Corporations are the beast on the leash that is government. The general citizenry are at the mercy of the beast as much as the leash lets them. And the beast turns around and bites the leash to weaken it so it can bite more and more into the citizenry, tearing the flesh and consuming them, and you're saying we should just cut the leash and let it fix itself.
Although it's pretty obvious at this point that we both see the same problems but see completely different causes.
Your understanding of a government is too narrow, and your understanding of a corporation is too wide. A corporation is a specific type of structure that is concerned with nothing but profit. That's how they work. Profit at all and any cost. Profit at every cost. Not inherently good or evil, the wellbeing of the actions it takes depends on the effectiveness of a free market. A corporation does not make choices. A CEO that does not make money is fired and replaced by one that makes the 'right' choice. (Which is of course to makemoney).
While a government is a governing system and is neither inherently good nor evil. The choices that the people in a government make can be affected by those that are governed. IE, if a government decides to not make money, what happens to the government's CEO? Does he get fired because he didn't make money?
What even is the goal of a government? There is no set goal of a government. There is no set hierachy of reponsibility.
You're confusing 'government' with 'American Oligarchical Dictatorship'. An American Oligarchical Dictatorship is a type of government but it is not the only type of government.
Yes, remove the government if it is an American Oligarchical Dictatorship. But then replace it with a government that isn't an AOD.
The entire complaint is that the government is FAULTY. It ALLOWS AND SUPPORTS corporate action. This is not a fundamental property of government.
And removing government will not change this, it will just let the corporations do what they want without worrying about it.
Like I said, a beast and the leash. The leash isn't working, remove it.
You'd think the people who think that no person voted illegally would be more than willing to contribute with this investigation so they could dispel this myth. Instead, they will do everything possible to make it harder for any accurate picture to form. That is because there was probably a good number of illegal votes. It's not hard to guess, US doesn't have that much of a control like other countries do (even those that american leftists praise), and at the same time US has a lot of illegal immigrants. If only a small fraction of them votes, it would still be a sizeable number.
By that logic I could simply say that I don't think corporations are to blame either. It's the statists, communists, and socialists. That's it.
They force people to do shit violently and the guvment allows it, because the guvment does exact same. I am not forced to buy/fund worthless shit from a corporation unless I want to in a capitalist society. The same just cannot be said of government, who threatens anybody it doesn't agree with with brutality and is extremely inefficient at its own resource management. Great Leader wants another goddamn statue? Pay up, loyal citizen of The People, or else!
Not very exciting or enlightening, is it?>>144922>Look up operation Ajax. Disobey Anglo-Persian, get your government overthrown.
I am sorry, but surely you see that you only reinforce my point that it is big governments that violently control the fate of everything?
Operation Ajax was an operation between multiple coordinating governments for their own ends and benefit. That much is obvious.
>What you don't seem to get is that I don't differentiate between government and corporate power. They are one and the same. Dismantling corporate power is the same as dismantling government power since they rely on the same mechanisms.
I disagree. One is simply violent, one peaceful. Governments rely on violence, corporations on trade. Completely different mechanisms. To lump them together as one and the same is to only see purple when it is possible to distinguish between red and blue.
>The reason I rail on corporate power more than governmental power is because it is the corporations that benefit.
Are you meaning to imply that the government themselves don't benefit from government power? Again, that is just blatantly untrue. I do not deny that government-connected corporations don't get power, but to completely look away at the government itself as if their hands are clean is absurd. Government always has the final say, because they are the ones with the guns, army, navy, airforce, and of course the bombs. I don't think I've ever heard of a company invading another in war on a national scale, on a world
scale, or nuking another company twice after slowly firebombing people alive.
>They are the ones who have no responsibilities but to themselves. The very structure of a corporation, the very nature of capitalism is the fundamental assertion "Fuck everyone but me".
Yes, but do corporations exist in a void? Do all their employees and products/services come from the aether to act on its supposedly wicked greed?
To fulfill a corporation's "selfishness", which really is just self-preservation and self-interest
(suddenly completely and absolutely more reasonable), they must
have a product or service that appeals to the people in order for it to sell outside of government funding. To trade with someone you must exchange with them something they like for something you have: it is a mutually beneficial, peaceful transaction because you get what you want and they get what they want as voluntarily agreed on. Not only that, but to even staff the corporation they must
have willing participants who are only incentivized to be there in the first place by having their own individual self-interest fulfilled.
Abandoning self-interest is to abandon humanity. It reduces people to drones, to animals, working together towards an arbitrary "greater good" with a leader or party at the top directing it all
, reaping all the luxury, benefits, and power at literally everyone else's expense. Freedom is an expression of self-interest. The very nature and existence of this website is inherently a product of freedom and capitalism: would a state approve a website for the non-working, non-reproducing, non-taxpaying wizard who enjoys the free creative consumer goods of Eastern animated media? The bureaucracy would surely disagree, after several months just to determine an answer because the government is fucking inefficient unless it involves violence
>Governments have no fundamental assertion but governance.
And how do they continue such "governance" in the future? By being equally concerned with self-interest, self-preservation, and the same "Fuck everyone but me" attitude that stereotypes da ebil corporations
. You simply cannot deny, cannot somehow make an exception that government is not concerned with its own brand of dirty, violent greed, because governments do not product anything. They can only take and take, occasionally giving to special interests… with money they take from other people! If something cannot produce goods on its own, it always takes and meddles in the affairs of others. That is governance!
>How the governance is done depends on external factors; for example, application of military force, influence of corporate power, control of the population.
And how is this all enforced
? All of which boils down on violence! Not mutually beneficial agreements, if you simply disagree you get your shit kicked in. I get tons of spam from corporations shilling me their products/services/discounts/coupons on the mail daily. I have the power to ignore them and dump them to the trash bin without a second thought because I vehemently despise being disturbed. But I cannot ignore what the government sends me because I know if I do, violence is always
the end result. On my property!
I have to get my sorry ass down to the DMV or whatever the hell smelly barely A/C'd building stuffed to the brim with normans for the renewal of bullshit every once in a while. I got a car and ranch to live as far away as possible from people, but never far away enough for Uncle Sam! Ever been to the DMV? My god, and some people want to make this our healthcare system
. They didn't even have enough shitty plastic chairs for people to sit on, and only one or two government employees working at a time on government schedules closing excruciatingly early. Just the road to get there is garbage compared to the private highways. Even the amount of forms to fill out is insulting, and holy SHIT if you forget to fill out one form or get it wrong, or if god help us they
make a "honest" mistake every single fucking time, mother mary save you. Sorry for the surprise anecdotal blogpost, but it's all bullshit because the moment I suggest "maybe if we privatize more of the system to be fast, efficient, and actually pleasant" people have a knee-jerk reaction to say it's just underfunded, we must pay MORE taxes
and mercifully beg the good governor to treat us like human beings and not like cattle! I've handled actual cattle treated better with more respect.
>>144922>Corporations are the beast on the leash that is government.
As if the government itself is not the beast?
>The general citizenry are at the mercy of the beast as much as the leash lets them.
We're all already at the mercy of the government, leash or no leach.
>And the beast turns around and bites the leash to weaken it so it can bite more and more into the citizenry, tearing the flesh and consuming them
Because surely the government does not already bite and weaken us? No, you're right, it doesn't bite, it shoots, imprisons, rapes, or just sends us to war to die elsewhere in a jungle via draft. It's a beast with a gun, and some people want to take away our own guns.
>you're saying we should just cut the leash and let it fix itself.
I don't think you understand me at all. I want the people
to have both government and
corporations on their leach. It's not a false dichotomy of either "gov or corporations", the gov is there maybe
for national defense since it does violence best, and the corporations are there to continue producing and making things for people to buy on their own free will, or to ignore them on their own free will. That's freedom, and that's what a society of the people
is like. Not a party or government claiming they're the people, but the actual goddamn people, which starts at the individual
>Your understanding of a government is too narrow, and your understanding of a corporation is too wide.
I do not agree with your assumption. I understand them both for what they are.
>A corporation is a specific type of structure that is concerned with nothing but profit. That's how they work. Profit at all and any cost. Profit at every cost.
First, you make it sound as if profit is bad. They make good, clean, wholesome profit that's voluntarily agreed on by the people that buy into it. That's their freedom. Second, by "at all, at any, at every cost" you seem to implicate violence and malicious behavior when that's simply untrue. Non-violence is always more profitable than violence as a whole for the market, which you specifically state so as "Not inherently good or evil, the wellbeing of the actions it takes depends on the effectiveness of a free market". The level of demonizing a neutral economical system is staggering.
What isn't demonizing though, which is just a statement of fact, is when I describe the central government as such:
>A government is a specific type of structure that is concerned with nothing but control. That's how they work. Control at all and any cost. Control at every cost.
A government with no control is no government. They produce nothing. They make nothing. They only take and control, and they do so with violence
because there isn't any other way to forcibly
get people to do something you want them to.
>While a government is a governing system and is neither inherently good nor evil.
Government fundamentally operates on violence, that's pretty fucking evil.
>The choices that the people in a government make can be affected by those that are governed.
Don't tell me you've fallen for the democracy meme. I'll explain it again why mass and blind democracy is nonsense if you'd like.
>IE, if a government decides to not make money, what happens to the government's CEO? Does he get fired because he didn't make money?
If a government does not make money, IE no taxes? Then that government crumbles because it has no means or resources to sustain itself! Government always
makes money, because that's how taxes work. You pay them not
to fuck you up. Governments have guaranteed profit
, independent corporations don't.
>What even is the goal of a government? There is no set goal of a government. There is no set hierachy of reponsibility.
The goal of government is always
to keep on governing. It needs to eat, it needs food, it needs your taxes and it will suck you dry. The hierarchy in government places officials above citizens, with police, agents, and military to do their dirty work. Citizens are the bottom, not beside. There is no need for responsibility, you just obey.
>You're confusing 'government' with 'American Oligarchical Dictatorship'
All governments are guilty of taxes and violence.
>replace it with a government that isn't an AOD.
Yes, replace it with a government so small it has nearly zero power unless national security is at stake for self-defense purposes. Or, just outright abolish the damn thing and let people run their own lives privately.
>The entire complaint is that the government is FAULTY. It ALLOWS AND SUPPORTS corporate action. This is not a fundamental property of government.
No, the complaint is that government as a system itself is faulty. That is
a fundamental property of government, because a government that does not collect taxes, does not utilize violence, is not a government that lasts very long.
>it will just let the corporations do what they want without worrying about it.
Not when the people
control the corporations, because the people
are its customers and workers. A corporation cannot exist without customers, without employees.
>Like I said, a beast and the leash. The leash isn't working, remove it.
I'd rather a leash held by the people themselves instead of exclusively granting power to anything else.
Are you an an-cap? Damn you could have spoilered me so i dont have to read your non-sensical fallacies.
My guvment is doing silly choices and you compare them to dictatorship?
Did they somehow find out his real identity before he told them? Otherwise why would you dox yourself to them, and really who would have anything to do with the media besides telling them to piss off?
>>144968>Non-violence is always more profitable than violence as a whole for the market
This is an assertion, and it is without evidence. Violence is actually very good for the market, see slavery. violence is great for the market, otherwise why would corporations literally pay governments to conduct violence for them?
Violence is FANTASTIC for the market. It's almost as if most of the US economy is based on private contracts for weapons. Violence is great for profit.
Your assertion that peace is good for profit ignores a lot of reality.
Peace, violence, these things are irrelevant to profit, nothing less, nothing more.
You're thinking I'm demonising the system, when in reality I'm pointing out the negative aspects of it and you are discarding my arguments since they don't fit your world view. This is what I think. You are starting from the position that 'neutrality' means 'everyone is nice to each other'.
Neutrality is a wasp that injects eggs into a caterpillar that then eats it from the inside out while still alive. Nature is neutral. Look at all the justice and good will in nature. Starvation, death, misery, suffering. This is neutral.
Evil is purposefully causing these things- no corporation is evil, they'll never enslave just for the act of causing misery, they'll do it because it's profitable. And it is.
Your arguments are like that of communists, that their system will just magically work once they put the pieces into place. It won't.
And you mention taxes. Where does the tax money go? When tax money goes to welfare, it goes back to the people. When it goes to roads, schools, the justice system, the police, it goes to the people. Police get paid and they spend the money.
What happens when money goes to corporations? In theory they re-invest.
There is the issue of in America, most taxes go to private firms. THAT is money you don't see again. The corporate structure takes income, and reinvests 99% of it. 1% of it, annually, is hoarded. Over time this compounds to become a stupendous wealth inequality.
Taxes are theft? No, making $400 of goods, and being paid $300 is theft.
Why can't you keep $400? And then you voluntarily send $100 of it, with the other workers to re-invest in machinery? It's theoretically a viable system.
You're also misunderstanding my analogy. The people are holding the leash, the leash itself is the government. The material is frayed, it's falling apart, corporations have been chewing at it for years, and we need to cut this faulty leash because it's whipping around and hurting the people that are holding it.
Fix the leash.
Besides, corporate structure also spends a lot of money investing in libertarian think tanks to trick people like you into thinking libertarianism is a good idea. The fox is telling you that the chicken coop needs to be removed for the good of the chickens because it's not working properly. It's also telling you that it should design the new one, since it's been changing the old one for decades and it's full of holes and flaws that are "completely not the foxes' fault".
I don't trust the fox.
"For the whole market"
This assertion is fundamentally incompatible with a free market, since the entire philosophy of a free market is that each actor in it is working in their own interest and not in the interest of the whole market.
Ergo, the assertion that 'x is more profitable than y for the whole market' is completely irrelevant since in a free market the VERY POINT OF THE SYSTEM is that the actors don't choose what is best for the whole market, but what is best for themselves.
The whole market is supposed to benefit from this destruction of the commons.
Let's take an examples:
Fishing in nova Scotia. Off the coast of America there was the most densely packed fishing grounds, the most profitable, and most sustainable that was fished for almost a century at about the same level. Then in the 1980s, the government DEREGULATED the fishing grounds (because of lobbying from the fishing industry), allowing free market exploitation of the entire area. In 30 years they managed to destroy the fishing area. Sustainable fishing is not a priority for a free market, as evidenced by REALITY. For a century the area was exporting fish around the world.
They now import fish from norway. Who happens to have not removed their fishing regulations.
REAL LIFE EXAMPLES WHERE THE FREE MARKET HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO CONTROL A RESOURCE HAS LED TO DISASTER EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Don't forget about the black plague. It killed so many people, that the survivors lived in a glorious age of enlightenment, filled with an overabundance of resources. More recently, the end of WWII brought a golden age of prosperity to America since so many people had died and there were more then enough resources for everyone.
Not really, the black plague wasn't so much violence as population control. What happened was that millions of serfs died and suddenly there was more land to work than serfs to work it. Serfs became in demand, they had to pass laws to stop people from paying serfs more and more, and giving them more and more rights as they were competing to get the serfs to work on their land. The laws didn't work so much but the general result is that it was opportunity for industrialisation, as well as liberation of people and thought. The people were given power since they were the ones holding the stems of wheat, and they couldn't be murdered into submission because they could not be replaced.
This is not true today. We've gone back to shortly before the black death where population was high and you can just murder people into submission if they try to unionise or ask for higher wages or whatever.
Markets are efficient, and they're neutral. Before the black death, it was profitable to stomp on peasants. Afterwards it stopped being so. And at the current time it is profitable to stomp on peasants again.
WW2 is something else as well. It was destruction, absolute ruin. Except the US. The US wasn't damaged at all. It actually used government bonds and such to build a massive industry of arms production and put the rest of the world into debt to it for selling the weapons to them. Being the only place in the world not bombed to shit is good for the economy. WW1 was similar, but it was a little different. In ww1, the resources and wealth of europe was brought to a specific location to destroy, but in WW2, the destruction was brought to the resources.
And yes, millions died and so there was lots of demand for workers and so they could command wages and such. It's another interesting fact that since the US was the only power not ruined by the war, it was the one that stomped the hardest on labour unions and 'communism'. McCarthyism was allowed because the US didn't suffer as badly as everywhere else. But with growing markets overseas it worked okay since the military industry workforce could be partly turned into a commercial industry, with the remaining part being used to build and develop a military against 'communism' to become the world police which was in reality a way to project force to remain economically dominant. Which leads into violence being a useful market tactic.
Your analogy is bad. The government isn't a leash, it's a beating stick. The people do not hold the government, the government is a structure that is used by a series of interest groups that are not "the people" (which is a spook), and that is regardless of whether the government is a democracy. The Public Choice theory has actually a lot of insights on how everyone democratically voting for their self-interest leads to many small interest groups plundering the bulk of society.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests
The problem here is that you're making a strong separation between government and corporations that do not exist and that in fact have never existed, they're two faces of the same coin. Even under socialism these power structures show themselves. You are right that violence is profitable, that's why people have engaged in it since the beginning of time, and that is why the government exists. Taking other people's stuff is profit, and that will always happen when it's profitable to steal. And the thing is, the government will always invariably serve as a means to extort from a person to another, from one group to the other. You might say "but it's the corporations that make the government do it", and you're right in a sense, but again, you would be making a difference between two parts of the same system, and it makes as much sense as arguing whether it's the heart or the brain that keeps you alive.
>>144971>Damn you could have spoilered me so i dont have to read your non-sensical fallacies.
you could have spoilered your lack of an argument either, but here we are.
>My guvment is doing silly choices and you compare them to dictatorship?
I don't think systematic violence is silly at all.>>144982>Violence is actually very good for the market, see slavery
…which was still abolished. And look where we end up, more prosperous than ever as a result of granting freedom. To an individual violence may seem preferable, but to "the market", which must be clarified as not some obscure higher plane but is just people trading with each other, then violence is not good for the market at all. The evidence is self-explanatory – you can't really foster creative trading when you're being violent with people. You would just be coercing them from making otherwise free choice in a competitive environment, and violence is exactly uncompetitive because it's force towards one thing, not selection of many for the best
>why would corporations literally pay governments to conduct violence for them?
because the government happily does it to make their own money as well? again, you seem to neglect that the government have their own interests and profit immensely from violence
>It's almost as if most of the US economy is based on private contracts for weapons. Violence is great for profit.
making and selling weapons doesn't mean they have to be used either for profit either, some have practical value in defense
>Your assertion that peace is good for profit ignores a lot of reality. Peace, violence, these things are irrelevant to profit, nothing less, nothing more.
I don't see how. As I've said, it's harder to conduct free trade, foster creativity, and inspire innovation in the market if you're violent and controlling. By your logic if violence is supposedly extremely profitable, totalitarian regimes would be extremely wealthy on their own just by their own violence, not from capitalism and trade.
see map for reference on who are the most free and who take more control, and then see how their nation fares with each other
>You're thinking I'm demonising the system, when in reality I'm pointing out the negative aspects of it and you are discarding my arguments since they don't fit your world view.
well you certainly don't seem to agree that the conceptual institution of government can also be a problem, so the irony is definitely there
>This is what I think. You are starting from the position that 'neutrality' means 'everyone is nice to each other'. >'everyone is nice to each other'.
oh my. What absolute nonsense, I do not think that at all. Normies are cruel, barbarous, savage people that democratically elect leaders to not just give them bribe for votes while also catering to special interests, but to incur violence on others just for their own personal gains against their own kind. My opinion on people is much, much, more cynical than you can ever imagine, which is precisely
why such power cannot be held at the hand of government when they do absolutely use their violence freely to whatever pleases them!
This is why I value peace and non-violent transactions even more, because it is so utterly rare in the world and yet proves itself to be infinitely more beneficial – it is what drives society and civilization forward and what has given us such nice things to enjoy. Not violence.
>>144982>Neutrality is a wasp that injects eggs into a caterpillar that then eats it from the inside out while still alive. Nature is neutral. Look at all the justice and good will in nature. Starvation, death, misery, suffering. This is neutral.
I don't see your point.
>they'll never enslave just for the act of causing misery, they'll do it because it's profitable. And it is.
except corporations do not enslave anybody when people are always able to quit, go elsewhere, or just start their own business. Understandably this might provoke wageslaves here or even NEETs, and I am not denying that there can be limited employment prospects, poor working conditions, and grueling hours for some people – but as a whole, the choice of individual agency is still there. There is just no force, no violence, no compulsion to do X or else the slavemaster or government labor camp coordinator will whip like what real slavery is.
>When tax money goes to welfare, it goes back to the people.
not ALL people, and some take more than others. It's simply unsustainable and should at the very least be limited to those who need it the most (NEETs/Wizards), not normies who just breed with no work to occupy their time and consume only more and more, squandering the supply
>When it goes to roads, schools, the justice system, the police,
which can be privatized (and yes, I am aware many will criticize me on this but I am adamant in my position).
>it goes to the people.
yes, it goes to those
people who you do not pay for and have no real consequences to their actions. They're just there, and you deal with it, no matter how shitty and piss-poor the system might be, or more commonly, just corrupt.
>Police get paid and they spend the money.
nothing like spending other people's stolen money, isn't it?
>What happens when money goes to corporations? In theory they re-invest.
and they do
re-invest, because otherwise how else can account for growth in business?
>There is the issue of in America, most taxes go to private firms. THAT is money you don't see again.
and I absolutely agree. It shouldn't go to corporations or back to the government officials' hands, it should remain with the people. Why have it go through a system to go back to? From the people to the government and then back again to the people somehow? It's all entirely unnecessary, and the middleman always takes his cut for something redundant, not to mention to feed their special interest friends like your ebil corporations fed by none other than the governmentIf you're going to say that tax money should go back to the people, then it should just simply be left with the people and not be taxed at all.
>The corporate structure takes income, and reinvests 99% of it. 1% of it, annually, is hoarded. Over time this compounds to become a stupendous wealth inequality.
And I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps my most controversial statement I will ever make here, is that there is nothing inherently wrong with wealth inequality because people are fundamentally unequal not just in body and mind, but in action
. Some normies work (not necessarily working harder, but working smarter with their resources and life decisions) more than others, some more valuable than others. Wizards and NEETs are exempt from this because we choose not to participate or are aware of the state's rat race, but looking at normies on a societal level and this is just a fundamental property of people: some are taller, shorter, smarter, dumber, more creative, less creative, and ultimately more productive vs not being so productive. And there's nothing wrong with that unless it's artificially propped up by government, because that means it's propped up by violence instead of merit.
to complain of wealth inequality is to complain that some parts of the earth are desert and some parts jungle. Fortunately for people, they can choose to go wherever they please although where you originally first come from is random. And I want to make this clear: I am not saying you can't help people, that you can't ease lift people up, but to do so with government, to do so artificially instead of naturally, with violence rather than peace, you are no better than the elite who got to the top from also using violence.
>>144982>Taxes are theft? No, making $400 of goods, and being paid $300 is theft. Why can't you keep $400?
because you agreed to the terms of your working conditions, voluntarily, willingly, and knowingly.
I want you think of this practically: you open a business, and because you are so rebellious of the capitalist system you pay your workers that $400 instead of $300. How will you have enough money to cover all business overhead expenses, development, research, staffing, maintenance, tools, HR, rents, properties, investments, countless other bills, and then on top of it taxes
you just can't if you give it all away. You can make compromises, and that is fine, but you do so not just your own risk, but the at the everyone's livelihood under you
. Wages are not all a magic number (I'm not denying that some are more arbitrary than others), but a good businessman thinks it through if it wants to stay in business, if he wants to keep selling goods and services to his customers, to the people
to enjoy. This idea of stating as an absolute that all
businesses as somehow keeping money from their workers just doesn't account for the fact that on the other side, that difference means less money to keep the business going, meaning if it goes bankrupt then nobody would be paid at all.
I'm not saying that some business owners can't be greedy and take more than necessary, which is despicable, but that is their
problem, not the system, and certainly not the people that choose
to work for shitty people.
>And then you voluntarily send $100 of it, with the other workers to re-invest in machinery? It's theoretically a viable system.
because there is no guarantee
that the other workers will send it back to re-invest. If people are given their own money, they damn well keep it, that's the entire point. How silly of it to suggest "I will give you $400 but I expect $100 back voluntarily because you're so nice". It's not going to happen. Theoretically viable or not, imagine managing that with hundreds, if not thousands, of employees. You'd get such a poor re-investment return that the company will plummet! Remember that you're in competition, if you don't keep things afloat, your customers might go elsewhere, your employees might quit, and then you'd be in ruins. It's not about mindless corporate loyalty, it's just the practicality of it.
And here's the part that will really knock your socks off is that: you can already do your system in private
. Try and open a business under your model, and see how far you can go. "Now hiring – giving back all what the workers produce!" Not even assuming that you're operating on a start-up loan with interest, but just sustaining it seems daunting. You'd have to make one hell of a product, but if your workers get all what they make, well you'd still get nothing.
>"Worker, why not share some of your money to make business even bigger?">"why?">"don't you want to make more people happy from our amazing product?">"yeah but I want to continue making the same amount of money" OR "I'll give you X amount, but not all of it" OR "piss off, you said we keep what we make you greedy capitalist"
and you'd have to have this conversation with every
worker. Growth would be tremendously weak, and the possibility of you getting outcompeted becomes extremely likely. At least in a traditional business environment they can offer raises when it becomes necessary, but to make it guaranteed
to make it so people are given more than what can keep things afloat, it's just an economical deathwish.
>You're also misunderstanding my analogy. The people are holding the leash, the leash itself is the government. The material is frayed, it's falling apart, corporations have been chewing at it for years, and we need to cut this faulty leash because it's whipping around and hurting the people that are holding it. Fix the leash.
flowery words, but the practicality of it speaks otherwise. It's all just emotion, how is it sustainable? I've been trying to answer this for years. Why bother with the leach that is government at all, when the people are already free to choose to fund and pay good corporations, to bankrupt and call it quits on bad corporations? It seems like you damn well want to choke the people with your government leach and call that "freedom" when no leach was ever necessary.
>Besides, corporate structure also spends a lot of money investing in libertarian think tanks to trick people like you into thinking libertarianism is a good idea.
and so do socialists with their own brand of poison…
>The fox is telling you that the chicken coop needs to be removed for the good of the chickens because it's not working properly. It's also telling you that it should design the new one, since it's been changing the old one for decades and it's full of holes and flaws that are "completely not the foxes' fault". I don't trust the fox.
And you don't have to. The beauty of libertarianism is that you're not forced
to listen to the fox. A government fox? He will
remove the chicken coop because it is for greater good comrade, for good of both fox and chicken-kind and everyone will be all equal and live in harmony. Chickens and foxes living together with no self-defense for either, what a riot!
What's worse than a fox's trustworthiness is a fox that seizes and uses violence for its gains – this is the fox of government.
>>144983>This assertion is fundamentally incompatible with a free market, since the entire philosophy of a free market is that each actor in it is working in their own interest and not in the interest of the whole market.
Ah, but the thing is that it is not forced. You are not enforcing "the good of the market", it just happens that the good of the market is freedom and peace. Someone who is concerned of their own long-term self-interest is exactly aligned with the values of a free market – freedom, not directing it one way or another, but maximizing freedom. Not slavery. Not violence. No coercion.>>144984>Then in the 1980s, the government DEREGULATED the fishing grounds (because of lobbying from the fishing industry), allowing free market exploitation of the entire area. In 30 years they managed to destroy the fishing area. Sustainable fishing is not a priority for a free market, as evidenced by REALITY. For a century the area was exporting fish around the world.
Yes, and they should of continued deregulating and completely privatized it.
Think this one though: Fishing companies want to continue making money from fishing – why the hell would they ruin the fishing spot? They now have clear and even greater incentive to keep it sustainable, because that's most profitable in the long-run
if it was completely privatized. Who knows what really happened by your example, regulations are still in place (remember, you said deregulation, not complete privatization). There may have been regulations that limited competition from entering it, or certain government restrictions, partial government management, etc.>>144987>Don't forget about the black plague
I see, so the black plague was somehow made by corporations. makes perfect sense.
>the end of WWII brought a golden age of prosperity to America since so many people had died and there were more then enough resources for everyone.
so your solution to economic prosperity is conscripting everyone (Wizards and NEETs included) to die so there is a forced amount of "abundant" resources? mass gulag is truly the time-tested soviet secret instead of letting people be free, fed, and alive, to produce and continue to multiply resources on their own
and your post was a non-argument post
that was good video. normally when i think of secession i think of "american civil war" but he makes a strong case from a different perspective
Im not really in too much politics to really say what I believe in as ideology but i am still exploring
sounds like you are just bummed out. I don't think you're exploiting your mom at all though, she doesn't seem to mind you being around voluntarily. sounds like a good NEET setup, being taken cared of by family and community which was in line with Mises/Rothbard to my knowledge so no principles are broken
all I can say is that you don't have to take a call center job, there's definitely other jobs out there if you keep searching. look elsewhere, jobs you didn't consider beforehand. plenty of shitty jobs take highschool grad at a minimum and some even offer training. ask extended family members if they can offer any help or know someone (maybe even themselves) that are offering work
godspeed m8, never give up your principles. it's one of those things that are free to develop but so valuable
>>145042>it just happens that the good of the market is freedom and peace
This is not true.
We've been over this.
A fundamental assumption you use to justify free markets is false.
>>145042>why the hell would they ruin the fishing spot?
Uh because they made money by fishing more than competitors? You're being willfully dense.
How so? It's no assumption when it's self-evidently true given a bit of thought. There is just no real competition, no prosperity, innovation, abundance, no freedom
without a free market.
All of your examples have roots in government influences as the cause, proving all of my own points. And please do not use the silly "da ebil corporation" example again or slavery, proven false time and time again. Conversely I must add that the fundamental truth
that the government exclusively operates and monopolizes violence remains vastly unrecognized.>>145063>corporations are apparently all so ebil they do everything to maximize money and profit because they're just so greedy!>corporations also don't do everything to maximize their profit in the long-term future by keeping safe and sustainable practices to continue profiting from renewable resources indefinitely
And you're being willfully contradictory.
To make it clear, I am not saying that no corporation can do wrong. Some are better than others, the idea is to let good corporations and good corporate practice stand and survive on their own merit instead of being propped up by government at everybody's expense, fueled by violence and crushing competition.
Destruction is simply not profitable in the long-term – you're destroying things, not creating more and more of it into radical abundance like what capitalism fosters!
Your post made me want to see how bad the fake news had actually gotten.
CNN says that too many people are able to gain employment and wages are threatening to rise at or above official inflation figures rather than continue actual freefall with sub-inflationary rises, and CNN claims that this is probably a bad thing.http://archive.is/BJxkJ
The Liberal end of the Left has gone insane.
It used to be that there were Right-Liberals, such as Libertarians and whatever Richard Nixon was, who were fully in favor of the bourgeoisie, no holds barred, and as such were totally opposed to the state's tendencies to step on the toes of the bourgeoisie. And against them there stood Left-Liberals, who believed that capitalism is great and must expand, but that expansion ought to be beneficial for the lower classes and required a state structure to support it and further its interests and to remove barriers and impediments to market forces. The 1960s were an era where the conflicts between Liberals like Nixon, who made peace with China and signed antimilitarization pacts with the Soviet Union, and Liberals like Johnson, who used a possible false flag as an excuse to invade Vietnam, rose to a fever pitch. Segregation was an impediment to the free market, would have to be removed by the state, not just at the level of suspending police enforcement of legal segregation, but at the level of suspending the rights to freedom of association and the related freedom to hire and fire workers for any reason or no reason at all, including skin color, at the private level. The right wing Liberals would claim to oppose this on individualist grounds, that a man, including a businessman, ought to have the right to refuse services and refuse employment as a matter of freedom of association and no matter what his refusal is based upon it ought to be his and only his. However, it was fairly obvious that the so-called individualism of these Liberals extended no further than the support of the status quo. The right wing Liberals are the ones who waged the most intrusive and unprecedented war upon the individual's exercise of life, liberty and property, in the right wing's War on Drugs. As an organization, the right clearly cared little for individualism, individual freedom, individual sovereignty or the pursuit of happiness or even for personal property given the constant expansion of the police right to search and seizure and their love of Blue Laws such as Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
It was possible to make sense of those Liberals. You might despise the Left-Liberal's tendency to support the capitalist system at the cost of individual liberties, and the Right-Liberal's tendency to support the status quo and existing class relationships at the expense of the wellbeing of the working class. But who can make sense of Liberals who seem to want to use the state against the workers so that "the economy can continue to grow." The only way to make sense of it is to believe that the Left Liberals like CNN are actually the old Bourgeoise Right Liberals, and all the former right wing liberals have moved so far to the right that they have ceased to be liberals at all. But they haven't, there's an old fashioned Libertarian true believer in this very thread, and every Left Liberal in politics, the media and academia would very steadfastly argue that they are in an ideological straight line from the Left Liberals of the New Deal, of Civil Rights and of the Great Society, and that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because the press is filled with bourgeoise distortions.
I get pretty sad when I think about the future of the western world. Everything I see points to it becoming overwhelmed by suicidal policies, both from the self-genocidal immigration policies to the destructive economical policies, while counties like China rise because they are pragmatical. I'm pretty sure we'll live to see the completion of the shift from the european hegemony to the asian hegemony. The reason it makes me sad is mostly because of the self-destructive nature of the West. It isn't as sad to see foreign troops invading someone's land than seeing a people destroy itself.
china's going to bust, probably within our lifetime. The U.S.S.R. broke up eventually, and historically China always breaks up into warring factions again and again. they just say it's all one big dynasty despite being once entirely ruled and dominated by foreigners, the manchus, lol. Mainland drones will rightfully deny this because of state propaganda since being nationally pessimistic is illegal, but you either collapse externally or internally and China's time is coming near no matter how much it seems to be booming and growing in the moment.
just think about all the conflicting policies they've been passing far away from their communist roots, stock market shenanigans, bubbles, NK increasingly even more an international liability which may prompt outsiders to intervene, rebellion continuing in tibet with monk terrorists, territory disputes with Japan and Philippines as always, non-han muslims on one corner also wishing to establish another *stan country, and not to mention the Taiwan problem that has existed for decades
no, China does not have a refugee problem but that does not mean they do not have problems at all. news just never report Chinese because they do not care. Western, eastern, they are all fucked. Always has, always will. the cycle continues until someone figures a way to get the hell out of this planet and leave with the best and brightest for interstellar wizardry
If destruction isn't profitable, why is the rainforest being destroyed? What was the ozone layer damaged? Why was sulphur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere? What was DDT used despite the damage to the ecosystem? Why is monsanto patenting genes of crops which damages innovation? Why are companies all universally pushing for longer patents to stifle innovation? Why is the oil industry pushing against climate change
You just have zero understanding of recent corporate history. It's like you were born in a bubble of nothing and exposed to libertarian propaganda from a young age. I'd compare you to someone who was raised in the Hitler youth, completely distraught and disconnected from reality.
Or a marxist, sitting around saying communism is great, while completely ignoring the complete human tragedies that unfolded because of the implementation of such failed ideas as they ran on 'people will be nice to each other'.
"Merchants of doubt" will be a nice introduction to how companies behave. They purposefully control public debate to DENY the issues that they're causing. The reason why fishing was deregulated is because the fishing industry was pushing that overfishing is fake news and isn't a real thing. Then it happened. Whoops! Remember, climate change isn't real so keep using oil and gas. What about the tobacco industry? They were killing their customers, but it is completely profitable. What is good for the corporation is not what is good for the future. Phillip morris is responsible for more deaths than stalin. Willingly, and knowingly. They knew about the hazards of tobacco smoking for roughly a decade before the public did, and the entire time they were funding studies and releasing information about the 'controversy', throwing up enough smoke into the air to obscure the hard truth in that their product is dangerous and they're killing people by selling it.
This is meaningless to a free market. Profit is more important than profit next year.
You're willfully ignorant and it's upsetting.
Oh one more thing- if you have a book showing that companies really do look after future interests beyond the next quarter, tell me and I'll read it.
In exchange, you'll read merchants of doubt and we'll have an exchange of resources and ideas rather than sitting on our hands denying each other.
That is if you have any resources that have historical and documentary evidence that shows you're right, which you don't. While a quick look at corporate history will show you're wrong, you'll blame it on governments.
Hey, sometimes corporations do get together and say 'hey maybe we shouldn't be allowed to run rampant, since it's dangerous'. And so people will get together and form some kind of meta-agency, responsible for being a controlling influence over markets and corporations to prevent self-destruction. They'd call this a 'government' and it'd be ran by representatives from the country.
I'm sure China will go through a crisis along with the West, but they'll emerge the stronger power in the end, while the West will decay. When it finally dawns to most whites that what they're doing to what was once their countries is suicide, it'll already be too late. They'll live in countries that are composed of hundreds of different nations, one at every neighborhood, every one of them a fifth column, every one of them believing that they were wronged by whites in some way because that's what they were taught, and by then it'll be too late to fix anything. How would they do it? Genocide? They wouldn't, and even if they tried they would already be a minority and would finish destroying themselves in the process. West's economy will be in shambles, and the poor social capital will mean that nothing will be able to sustain the failed system. China, on the other hand, would have nothing holding it back.
By the way, West's decay is something that has been going on for more than a hundred years already, and it'll probably go on for another hundred years. It's not something revolutionary, I'm pretty sure that in a few hundred years some chinese scholar will publish a book delineating the decay of the West much like we talk about Rome today. We're simply in the middle of the process.
So what YouTube "intellectual" did you copy your ideas from?
"None", "those" "are" "just" "my" "observations".
I agree with this. For all of those tests listed in the OP, all I could even answer was "I don't give a shit". As one such as myself, what reason should I have to care about politics or whatnot? Ultimately, if you are given a """""""voice""""""" in the matter, there is nothing that can be done to truly change your situation for the better. As long as I am able to live a quiet life of sorts, there is no more that I could ask for. I don't care about those around me, nor those that might exist in the future. In my eyes, only my own existence is meaningful, and why should I see otherwise? Politics are just another method of creating groups and aligning with them, which is, ultimately, the collectivist behavior one might expect from a "normie"/"norp"/whatever word you would like to use in response to a person who integrates within society in some manner. To align with such groups is the epitome of normality, and the destruction of individuality, leading to the omnipresent "hivemind" seen in normal types. If you care about politics, I believe that you can never truly live the wizard lifestyle, you can never truly show that intent to escape society or even live on its fringes. Any and all forms of political activism inherently show a desire to be a part of society.
Don't mind me though. What could I know?
Question: is this fucked?
You get a man who cannot afford education or anything else to improve his status, has a job that only supports him to the minimum, and can't afford any savings, doesn't that limit the amount of industries he could invest in? He could only get food afford rent and maybe a car.
Here's it in greentext just to reduce confusion
>No possibility for education
>No disposable income
>No possibility of saving
>If he can't afford anything other than rent, food, and maybe a car payment, he can't expend money into other stores
>Basically, stores that employ these guys are responsible for limiting or growing more consumers for other stores.
Economically, wouldn't it make sense to allow those at the bottom rung rise to a decent level, or are the people who are literal wage slaves too small of a population to worry about, and resources would be better used on those in the middle class, who drive a lot of the spending?
A person like that would be an actual proletarian. Chadporky pays the Police and Military to protect him from the anger of those who have nothing.
>>145540>Economically, wouldn't it make sense to allow those at the bottom rung rise to a decent level
not by force, no, because if what you say are absolutes with no room for individual improvement or advancement whatsoever (a falsehood) then it would be a waste to "lift him up" artificially if he is absolutely useless by your own criteria and consumes more than he can ever contribute.
the reality remains that most normies are always capable of becoming more educated or more skilled in life, always capable of better managing their spending habits, finances, finding alternative employment prospects, connections, etc. You even mentioned he is at least capable of purchasing a car, meaning he has some money and is able to make decisions for the future. Otherwise even in the city if he moves, public transportation is there as well. If he still gets a car, he can find a different job elsewhere since he is mobile. It's just that most normans choose not to, choosing immediate luxury instead of delayed gratification and thus, choose themselves into poverty to bitch about it.
This isn't being pessimistic or optimistic, but a matter of fact. There is an infinite amount of possibilities, or opportunity, in the world, at the right time and the right place changing at every second. Technically it's an infinite amount of risk as well, but that's still an infinite amount of possible rewards. Being conscious of this and reassessing one's options, evaluating lifestyle trends, weighing costs, benefits, consequences, just making better decisions in general so said good decisions continues to compound further, that is how normans typically get ahead.
>resources would be better used on those in the middle class, who drive a lot of the spending?
not at all. please look into supply-side economics instead of the utter cancer that is demand-side (Keynesian) economics. Reckless spending for the sake of it for "growth" is a short-term folly and isn't really indicative of prosperity, just an illusion of it because it's mass consumption, not creation. Businesses make, customers eat. Catering to more eating instead of making means you'll only get fat in the moment and starve later instead of having abundance and a healthy diet.>>145542>the anger of those who have nothing.
personally this always strikes me as something silly. People have themselves, i.e. their body, mind, and the ability to make decisions. Why someone would resort to the destructive violence of anger (and be met with violence in turn) instead of using that energy to move find ways of moving ahead is always beyond me. Just seems like a self-inflicted sense of victimhood.
Not completely fucked. If you want savings you could save a lot by stop paying rent and living in your car. Then you'll save a large chunk of your income to invest in whatever you want.
>>145293>If destruction isn't profitable, why is the rainforest being destroyed? What was the ozone layer damaged? Why was sulphur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere? What was DDT used despite the damage to the ecosystem?
What are you trying to say? Obviously if everything is destroyed, you can't make money from it anymore. It's just more profitable in the long-term to keep things intact as a principle
As far as those environmental examples you cite specifically, you cannot deny that government has been involved in all those scenarios and you know this. You just desperately want to pin it all on "da ebil corporations" as usual, and frankly, it's getting really unimaginative.
>Why is monsanto patenting genes of crops which damages innovation? Why are companies all universally pushing for longer patents to stifle innovation?
You understand that the nature of patents means they ultimately rely on the government for reinforcement, right? Right?
>Why is the oil industry pushing against climate change
Why do certain companies/political parties want green initiative funding by pushing
climate change? It's all the same. Different bias towards steering the government, knowing the state wins either way from different lobbying groups. The big picture of climate change however, is that climate changes. That's not to say that we can't take better care of the environment, but it can certainly be accomplished without a state.
>You just have zero understanding of recent corporate history.
Likewise I can accuse you of the same by suggesting that you
have zero understanding of every issue you have presented to me. You just see "oh, corporation X is involved, therefore all corporations are bad." Have you examined the root of problems, and realized who really pulls the strings?
I did not want to believe my government is the problem, because it's so delightfully easy to blame corporations. It really is. But corporations come and go, and yet the same governments remain just as wicked, just as sinister, just at the bottom of it all. Why? What makes it so immune despite failure after failure? Because it keeps itself immune, seemingly immortal by force until it collapses by its own weight eventually.
>It's like you were born in a bubble of nothing and exposed to libertarian propaganda from a young age. I'd compare you to someone who was raised in the Hitler youth, completely distraught and disconnected from reality.
I'm sorry but that's not really an argument. Call me this and that, ad-hominem after ad-hominem, and for what? The same things you accuse me of, I can likewise groundlessly accuse you of and say you've also been raised by state propaganda since a young age and is completely distraught/disconnected from reality. Not very insightful, now isn't it?
>The reason why fishing was deregulated is because the fishing industry was pushing that overfishing is fake news and isn't a real thing. Then it happened. Whoops!
You and I know there was more to the story than that. You describe at best a gross oversimplification, or cherry picked scenarios at worst. Pro-tip: "Deregulation" is not the same as complete "Privatization" – how deregulation was exactly conducted is very crucial to the resulting outcome! The element of a state and all of its influence however, undeniably remained.
>Remember, climate change isn't real so keep using oil and gas.
But I don't deny climate charge? The climate is always changing regardless of what the human race does. I simply disagree on a fundamental basis that government intervention is necessary. People can still take better care of the environment on their own terms.
>What about the tobacco industry? They were killing their customers, but it is completely profitable.>normies choosing to kill themselves by consuming tabacco>anybody's fault but theirs
You don't need a scientist to know that tobacco absolutely destroys one's health. Even the smoke smells like cancer at a whiff. They had it coming, and I hold zero sympathy for normies who indulge in self-destructive habits in order blame other parties. This is coming from a family with smokers and drunks!
>What is good for the corporation is not what is good for the future.
How do you know this? Is that an absolute?
Likewise, I can equally say what is good for the state is not what is good for the future.
>Phillip morris is responsible for more deaths than stalin.
Oh c'mon, this is just ridiculous. Nobody is forcing people to smoke. People were forced to go to the gulag en masse. Surely you must have read The Gulag Archipelago
by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I really want to take you seriously, but you're not making it easy.
Next you're going to tell me that alcohol has killed more people than Pol Pot like a prohibitionist spinster of the state.
>They knew about the hazards of tobacco smoking for roughly a decade before the public did, and the entire time they were funding studies and releasing information about the 'controversy', throwing up enough smoke into the air to obscure the hard truth in that their product is dangerous and they're killing people by selling it.
My aunt was a smoker. I asked why she smoked despite knowing there might be possible consequences towards her health by putting anything but oxygen in her lungs. "I just like it," she said. She was a smoker. These "hazards, "studies", and "information" are all well and good, but unless people are somehow magically forced to smoke or to consume their products, people do things at their own risk and are met with the consequences accordingly.
The only hard truth is that some people choose to kill themselves and that's just their choice, that is their right
to have that freedom. Information or not, people are always responsible for their actions and that is as hard a truth that will ever be if they had not once been skeptical of putting goddamn smoke into their own body.
>This is meaningless to a free market. Profit is more important than profit next year.>capitalists are bad because they are so concerned about profit>except when they're not concerned about profit!
This is what you sound like right now, and I know you're better than that.
>You're willfully ignorant and it's upsetting.
I say the same to you. All the same, every time, with all these ad-hominems.
The irony behind your blind eye of the state is truly staggering.
>>145296>Oh one more thing- if you have a book showing that companies really do look after future interests beyond the next quarter, tell me and I'll read it.
I don't need to provide you anything, because you and I both know there are companies that have existed beyond one quarter!
>In exchange, you'll read merchants of doubt and we'll have an exchange of resources and ideas rather than sitting on our hands denying each other.
I might pick that up, but I can make no promise.
Once again, your accusation amuses me. I do not deny anybody. I challenge them. You say this, I say that, and I stand my ground with reason and logic. May the best idea win, and to this I would have thought that ideas have already been exchanged for that to even occur.
>That is if you have any resources that have historical and documentary evidence that shows you're right, which you don't.
Because it's terribly boring to cite citation after citation, appeals to authority left and right, when I would rather get to the point and decide by the merit of each other's argument rather than spamming people out with "resources".
However if you really wanted reading material, just go to mises.org.
>While a quick look at corporate history will show you're wrong, you'll blame it on governments.
Because you seem to confuse me as defending all
corporations since time immemorial and not the concept of a corporation
. I want
corporations to fail, because a bad corporation is weeded out while good corporations endure! A government is what cements shitty corporations, stops smaller businesses from developing properly to compete, and generally fucking people over from taxes and overregulation. The beauty of corporations is that there can be more than to come out the strongest at any given time, while people are always chained to the same government for worse or far worse.
For the record, I do not blame "the government" as much as I do blame the people that continue to support it, because a government is composed of people and not omnipotent benevolent angels.
>Hey, sometimes corporations do get together and say 'hey maybe we shouldn't be allowed to run rampant, since it's dangerous'. And so people will get together and form some kind of meta-agency, responsible for being a controlling influence over markets and corporations to prevent self-destruction. They'd call this a 'government' and it'd be ran by representatives from the country.>describes a potentially voluntary, reasonable, and non-violent independent regulatory meta-agency>calls it government as if such a thing cannot be done privately
It's government when it tries to enforce
its rules to those who want no part of it. And it enforces it, with violence
. THAT is government, not practical private 3rd-parties that keep an eye on things peacefully, imposing agreed-upon penalties and consequences to those that break agreements without a shred of brutality.
You say it is government when people just "get together", but they get together to enslave everyone else in the name of "government"! All I can really say, is sic semper tyrannis
By the way I checked this out and they didn't pull 19 million dollars a year out of thin air. Let's say I posted a website that was a .gov website that was like "government is the best thing ever" and it was purely funded by the government. You'd disregard it as nonsense. But a corporate funded libertarian think-tank whose entire purpose is twisting reality to fit the corporate idea of full exploitation? That's a reliable source of information.
Not him, but corporations likes politicians to interven in the economy to create laws to protect them, so they don't support free market. Paying politicians to protect them is easier than competing in the free market.
They would rather spend money as lobbyists you fool.
Libertarian think-thanks are big corporations enemies.
Tbh I would rather for the Earth to explode.
Avg verbal IQ of jews is 123, not a surprise they dominate the media.
Your entire belief in corporations rely on a central principal that altruism is profitable.
Let's take two corporations:
A is altruistic. B is not, and is completely exploitative.
A decides to fish less to preserve the fishing pool for later years profits.
B decides to make more money now and overfishes to make more money.
B sells fish cheaper than A since it's making more. A can no longer compete. It goes out of business for being weak, or it raises its fishing quota so it stays alive.
Then a couple years later, the fishing resources are depleted, and they're importing fish from norway, who had a government using force to stop corporations from doing stupid things.
You also assume that violence isn't profitable. Incorrect, slavery is incredibly profitable, at least until you run out of slaves. What killed the slave trade was actually that slaves were no longer cheap. Being treated as disposable people depleted the african resource 'slaves'. They died and suffered en masse as they were depleted for profit.
The history of the sugar trade will teach you about capitalism. The history of anything will, to be honest.
There are numerous examples, historically where corporations have acted in the exact opposite fashion to what you say they do. I am no fan of government, but there is no law of markets acting on them and such they can be anything.
Like I said earlier, corporations are like nature. They're neutral. A lion eating a gazelle alive is neutral. A bee working together with flowers is neutral. A wasp injecting a caterpillar with eggs and then having them eat their way out while the caterpillar is still alive, purposefully avoiding vital organs to prolong the freshness of the meat is neutral.
The idea that corporations will suddenly gain some magic market-proof precognition is nonsense. Or rather, like I said earlier, they'd maybe rely on a third party who can use force to prevent them from destroying the resources they rely on for business. They'd call it a government. Then they'd ask for representation in this government, and demand it if asking fails.
Government forms unnaturally. It is a completely unnatural force that forms when people realise that nature sucks and some kind of governing is required to reach a more sustainable existence.
Until you can show that corporations will all agree (scouts honor) to work together for the long term good and somehow not call that government, by perhaps historical examples of corporations working together unequivocally for the greater good and not their own, or maybe foolproof examples where corporations are immune to illogical behaviour, there is no basis for corporate freedom. Corporations are not people. (another big fallacy of the libertarian worldview is that people are always logical and rational. The irony is lost on them.)
In his heart of hearts Macron is a Reactionary, and everyone knows it.
"Emmanual Macron says France needs a King," GQ magazine, May 2017http://archive.is/AVZxO>“In French politics, this absence is the presence of a King, a King whom, fundamentally, I don’t think the French people wanted dead,” said Macron. “The Revolution dug a deep emotional abyss, one that was imaginary and shared: the King is no more!” According to Macron, since the Revolution France has tried to fill this void, most notably with Napoleon and then Charles de Gaulle, which was only partially successful. “The rest of the time,” said Macron, “French democracy does not manage to fill this void.”
> Macron wants to strike the perfect balance between "authoritarianism and political passivity".
"Macron vows to transform France in Versailles speech," The Guardian, July 2017http://archive.is/MiF2X> Emmanuel Macron has promised a “profound transformation” of France and Europe, calling for an end to defeatism and “cynicism”
> Macron repeated his promise to slash the number of members of parliament by one third and hold a referendum on it if parliament did not approve.
>Jean-Luc Mélenchon, head of the leftist France Unbowed group, led his 17 MPs in a boycott, accusing “Macron the pharaoh” of crossing a line in his “monarchical” approach to the presidency
>Macron’s new party, La République En Marche, which defines itself as “neither left nor right”, […] proposed structural reforms, including the changes to loosen the French labour code to ease rules on businesses.
"In Sun King's palace, Macron threatens to ram through Parliament reform," Reuters, July 3rdhttp://archive.is/lkdu5>Macron himself has said he plans a "Jupiterian" presidency - as a remote, dignified figure, like the Roman god of gods,
All of these news articles are news in the west, but my understanding is that they are not particularly news in France; I have read rumors that Macron has been running in Royalist circles (Action Française–a Royalist party–supposedly invited him to speak at an event once), and he might be an Orleanist.
I'm honestly surprised at the relative lack of conspiracy theories surrounding the dude, he's neck deep in neoreaction.
In theory, yes. In practice, libertarianism in america means 'less regulations restricting exploitative practices' and 'ignore anything that's beneficial for corporations'.
Libertarianism gets massive quantities of money from mass murderers like phillip morris and monsanto.
Not really. Even if that is true about them, their tiny population (1.4% in Usa) means that they are still only a small fraction (6%) of people with verbal IQ above that level. So it actually doesn't provide any explanation of why they would seemingly dominate any occupation.
As why I call phillip morris a murderous organisation, it's because of what they do.
Let's take the last 30 years; tobacco is basically confirmed to kill 30% of the people who are addicted to it. These numbers are not pulled from a study but estimated, but the exact numbers are less important than the general underlying concept that tobacco smoking is lethal to a large portion of its users.
So, with the knowledge that something is lethal to large numbers of people, would you be guilty of a crime if you marketed this to a new market of billions of people without telling them it's lethal? what I mean is the asian market. China is a growing economy and the tobacco industry is making massive amounts of money from advertising tobacco in that area. As a bonus, they also pay the government to not regulate their advertising so there's no requirement for them to tell people how lethal their product is.
So they're, with full knowledge and complicity, promoting the death of dozens millions of people for their own personal gain. This is why they are worse than stalin.
And it surprises me how anyone can defend this practice. Sure the information that smoking is dangerous exists, but it's not phillip morris pouring in billions of dollars of advertising who will tell you this.
Or monsanto. They've been a chemical company before they were an agricultural one. To shorten their story it's basically the same. They poured toxic waste products into rivers around where people lived, and then manipulated the media and suppressed knowledge to get governments to ignore it. It took a long time and lot of damage to get them to stop, and it wasn't willingly. Their own internal documents in the various court cases revealed that they had full knowledge of the damage they were doing to people yet they kept going anyway since money is the one true law to corporations.
Then we have bhopal and union carbide, where investing in 'safety' and 'worker training' and shit like that doesn't matter since it's cheaper to save money on safety and such and have a massive chemical disaster (and then not pay a single fucking cent cleaning it up) in the short term.
The reason it happened in india was because they did not have a government strong enough to stop them. Talking about weakening the government's power to stop corporations because they've been corrupted by corporations is missing the point.
Then we have CFCs- the damage they were doing was denied for decades. Sulphur dioxide emissions causing acid rain- this was denied for decades. They stopped pouring sulphur into the atmosphere after government regulation- regulations that they're trying to use the libertarian movement (which they hijacked) to get rid of so they can remove those expensive chimney filters (Which cost jobs, they'll tell you). The 20th century is mostly a history of regulations restricting corporation's self-destructive practices (tragedy of the commons style) and the libertarian movement is hijacked completely by them so they can re-gain their self-destructive practices. An argument would go something like this:
If you let us pour sulphur into the atmosphere, we make more money and create a business opportunity for sulphur removal, creating jobs! Which is essentially the same as "Let us break windows while trundling past your house and we make more jobs in the window making industry!". A broken window fallacy.
And climate change (or rather, human caused climate change and the highly negative effects of a climate that reduces agricultural output) is also on this corporate libertarian chopping block. The doubt, The controversy! We found 10,000 scientists willing to say that this very specific form and result of climate change is wrong and therefore all climate change is nullified with this petition!
Corporations are self-destructively efficient. That is their strength it is also their weakness.
They're both crimes, moron.
Besides, my point was that murder and violence are profitable, and the fact that governments do it too just reinforces this point.
I read some descriptions of how property would be treated in communism and it's nightmare mode. Any sort of property you manage to obtain would only be yours until some norm appeared and claimed to need it, so it's basically total dependence on the nonexistent goodwill of rapacious norm thugs to not steal everything you have because of their "need", and to additionally produce more things when you need them (i.e. not going to happen because they hate you) - but why would they bother doing that when they have everything they want?
I don't really understand how it fits with the idea of workers keeping the fruits of their labour through ownership of the means of production, as anything produced would be things that can be removed due to "need".
Living with such circumstantial insecurity would be horrible.
You mean under state communism. Communism was actually meant to be stateless, where people would voluntarily give what they don't need to others.
You can see where this might not work right away.
Marxism is pretty retarded.
YEAH THANKS !!!
MOBILIZATION for the French family LESTEVEN chased away from her home having been threatened of death and mugged by Islamists in the shout of " DIRTYFRENCH ".
It takes place to Elne (Pyrénées-Orientales (Eastern Pyrenees), 66).
Let's be realistic. The only thing that has a chance to change the status quo significantly this century is disruptive technological change on the level of genetic engineering or AI.
The political-economic system of democratic universalism + capitalism is too entrenched and will resist any reform from the top. It has an effective way to insulate itself from effective bottom-up reform through decades of experience.
Neofascist polkiddies have zero chance of taking over the reins of power in any country that matters or implementing any of their policies. The heavy-handed approach of Nazism left a permanent stain on anything approaching that ideology. Since there is no alternative, change will have to come from outside the political arena.
we don't post pictures of succubi here.
It was posted for an higher good
>>146033>The heavy-handed approach of Nazism left a permanent stain on anything approaching that ideology.
No, the fact that they lost the war left a permanent stain. You should make yourself aware of the propaganda that you've been fed by the status quo.
If I were an incel I would post about "defending white succubi" and reproducing for "le wait race"
He called you an incel because the first thing that comes to your mind when someone mention war crime is succubi and sex. So I agree with him, you're pathetic.
He posted about succubi and sex, his video with "muh aryan succubi raped by commies" is the typical incel propaganda coming from pol
Apologies then, I won't click on videos nor I visit anywhere outside wizchan.
Are you actually interested in an honest discussion or will you try to shitfling your way out of this? My reply was to someone posting a link to an article about war crimes committed by Germany, so it's only natural that I also point that allies committed war crimes too. It's also fair that I point out that Germans were the losers and they were judged by the winners, who employed and continue to employ propaganda even after the war. There's a good chance that you have been influenced by post-war Allied propaganda, and you should take some time to engage in self-critique.
The Athenians lost the Peloponnesian War. They also wrote the history of that conflict, and the attribution of their loss to their own vices is fairly typical of the Athenian intellectual class.
The Optimates lost their wars. Badly. Very, very badly. They were still regarded as tragic heroes by very nearly everyone, including Shakespeare, despite being unpopular, starting repeated civil wars, being losers, assassinating Caesar, and being a general nuisance.
The Greeks, particularly Polybius, recorded the Roman conquest of Greece, and the Israelite Josephus is one of the more trusted and well known historians of their reign. The Syriac Christians, particularly Jacob bar Hebraeus, recorded the Muslim conquests and their reign, just as the Romans were the historians of the Gothic, Lombard and Frankish conquests.
During the Saxon conquest of Britain, the Brythonic Celts lost, and quite badly, yet it was the Celts who wrote the histories and passed down the legends of the age; the poets of the time whose voices are recorded, Gildas, Taliesin and Aneiran, were Celts, not Saxons, and the Saxons did not bother to write their accounts down, having been too busy winning. The losers were the ones who had to settle for the consolation of history and the lost pride of a High King "Arthur" who once ruled their lands and totally beat up all the Saxons. Centuries later the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was compiled, being the history of Saxons who felt themselves terrifyingly threatened, by the Danish Empire and the rebellions of the Celt and the terrifyingly ambitious upstarts beyond their southern shore. Once again, the history was recorded by the losers; William the Conqueror's greatest and most trusted biographer was Orderic Vitalis, a Saxon nobleman turned monk, who recorded the full criminal horror of the Harrying of the North. And just as history repeated itself upon the Norman Conquest, so too did legend, with Hereward the Wake where once was Arthur.
Napoleon lost the war. Bonapartism and the figure of the Enlightened Despot are still regarded highly.
The Confederacy lost its war and for the next 100 years every book, story, poem or film about this war took up Jefferson Davis' interpretation of the Noble Lost Cause of the South, Hollywood itself only changing its tune after the 1960s. One solid century of Gone With the Wind
and comic books about tanks led by the ghost of Jeb Stuart and pulp stories about Confederate cavalryman John Carter of Mars.
The Injuns lost their wars, their lands, their languages, their cultures, their religions, and their peoples. How'd they get recorded in history? Even in South America, where the Spaniards attempted to stamp out all traces of the local history, the history of Pizarro's conquest was written with a markedly Incan perspective.
The Spanish Left lost their civil war. Orwell's socialist Homage to Catalonia is the great English language account of the matter, but even in Spain history takes the loser's part. Just as nearly a century before, the Paris Commune lost and were recorded as heroes.
The biggest difference between these wars and the World Wars is a matter of scale, but not in the way many of us might think. There are simply so many losers
in a World War. Belgium was trusted regarding the Fall of Belgium, France about the defense of France, White Russia about the Russian Civil War, Black Ukraine about Kronstadt and the Anarchist Free States, but it goes further. The Ottoman perspective is generally preferred
about the Middle East, and almost everyone today believes a continued Ottoman Empire would be preferable to the establishment of the House of Saud, the Young Turks massacre of the Armenians (the Armenians being the historians there,) and the whole human cost of post-Ottoman fragmentation. Nobody in the West has much particular cause to take the Ottoman part, but it is done with great regularity.
The losers of World War 2 were, in chronological order, The French, The Poles, The Ashkenazim, The Italians, The Germans, and The Japanese. The French are remiss and the Italians pretend to have taken no part, but the Poles wrote the history of the fall and partition and occupation of Poland, the Ashkenazim wrote of the German state, the Germans are the history-keepers of the Soviet conquest and rule, including the Soviet forced relocation of ~10 to ~20 million ethnic Germans, which resulted in somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 million deaths, depending upon sources. Yes, I know that men like Gunther Grass became liberal lefties before they were allowed to become significant literary figures, but Gunther WAS a Waffen-SS advanced recon soldier first, and the denial that he personally committed war crimes doesn't quite add up. And the Japanese shall always be the voice of highest authority on the Atom Bomb.
History is, as a general rule, a subject fit for losers, not winners. Those who write history are generally those who feel the sting of a world that has gone terribly wrong. Probably one of the reasons wizards find themselves drawn to it.
You did a good job identifying what would be called the revisionist strand of history.
The so-called "revisionist" strand is in many of these cases the only strand which actually exists. Livy, Tacitus and other ardent Republicans longing for a government without Caesars while serving in the courts of Caesars are the primary voices on the Caesars. Athens is the only voice on Sparta.
The loser's case, which you call "revisionist," is often the first case compiled. The first history of the Soviet Union was written in the gulags and in the apartments of the exiles such as the former Boyars, White Russian officers, Old Bolsheviks, and Leon "Icepick" Trotsky. Absent extreme and serious derangement, such as Stalin's, winners are too busy creating history to be the ones recording it.
In 100 years, Communists will be the only historians trusted on the United States of America, just as Capitalists are the only historians trusted regarding the Soviet Union.
If only it were so for the conflict near and dear to my heart, the Vietnam War. I'm still waiting for Diem to be rehabilitated.
>>146075>winners are too busy creating history to be the ones recording it.
That may have been the case in the past, but these days everything is recorded. The problem with looking at history as a sort of reoccurring cyclical prophecy is that you ignore the circumstances that make historical events different from each other in the first place: technological development, for one.
I do not agree with your approach at predicting the future based on speculation; we can never really know how people will evaluate our current affairs in the future, for if we knew, their future would be very different. Only in retrospect, in hindsight, does your observations bear merit and that completely ignores first-accounts and other information "the other side" may have produced/recorded for themselves.
>>146071>A lot of people lost wars long ago and we don't think bad of them
You're right, but those wars were fought long ago. WW2 is comparatively much more recent. It might look old to you, but civilization-wise, it's extremely recent, and that is not to mention that it is substantially different than others, as WW2 was the war when propaganda as we know was employed much like other aspects of the war machine. I'm actually pretty sure that people will have a more objective outlook of WW2 in the next century or 2. But as of today, the status quo itself is still very reliant on the ideology that was produced by the winners of those wars, and the powers that be still need the result of those wars to be justified as they still support themselves on them.
No one claims legitimacy over the Peloponnesian War, but the world today very much still relies on WW2 being won by the good guys. In the future people will probably be able to look at the past more objectively, but that is still not today. Today, you are still raised to believe in the status quo.
Also I don't want to sound condescending, but I truly believe that most people still don't look at WW2 as you look at wars that ancient greeks fought. WW2 is still a fundamental part of people's ideology and the way the world is structured today, which is why you become aggravated when I say "nazis weren't the bad guys". Ask yourself if you would be anywhere as moved if I someone said that this or that greek city-state was right, wrong or neither. You wouldn't, right?
The nazis were pretty bad though. No worse than the mongols though.
>The nazis were pretty bad though
I don't know about you but I hate "life," and the "nazis" wanted a world in which people like us are prevented from being born. So how bad could they have been?
>>145614>But a corporate funded libertarian think-tank whose entire purpose is twisting reality to fit the corporate idea of full exploitation? That's a reliable source of information.
Frankly, I do not care about source as much as content. Something either presents valid arguments, or it doesn't. Gov websites or not, blind appeals to authority are still blind appeals to authority and .gov websites are no exception. I do not claim that mises.org is infallible, but I have yet seen any other superior argument against its content.
And as it stands, a government still absolutely does fundamentally use violence to operate and meddle in the affairs of people while corporations don't, they just trade not tax.>>145616>Your entire belief in corporations rely on a central principal that altruism is profitable.
I have never made such a laughably ridiculous claim. It is just a simple matter of self-explanatory fact that keeping something alive for trade is more profitable than outright killing it, because the dead are not very productive economically
. This is especially true when thinking in terms of long-term growth. No altruism needed whatsoever, and again I think you will find I hold an extremely cynical view of the world which has lead me to appreciate libertarianism and capitalism.
I am beginning to think you base your entire argument on emotions rather than logic, seeing as if you knew anything about Rand and the objectivist perspective of "altruism" (traditionally associated with libertarianism), you would find it very sorely lacking in anything resembling "altruism". Boggles my mind for you to think of libertarianism as some kind of "feel good" platform that requires people to just magically trust corporations or for corporations to trust each other, despite being all completely extremely critical of a state in favor of individual freedom and choice instead.
>B sells fish cheaper than A since it's making more. A can no longer compete. It goes out of business for being weak, or it raises its fishing quota so it stays alive.
Then a couple years later, the fishing resources are depleted, and they're importing fish from norway, who had a government using force to stop corporations from doing stupid things.
Your overtly simplistic view of competition is utterly naive. It's not that simple. For one, corporation A can publicize and smear corporation B for its destructive practices and get customers not to trust it, meaning less revenue from increasing public FUD. Why are some people so adamantly defensive regarding "organic" food, even so far as paying extra for its supposedly ethical practices? Because it matters to customers, and the customers always have the absolute final say.
In addition, you completely ignore the possibility that corporation B can and does lobby against corporation A for more favorable laws that secure its destructive domination despite A's best efforts in clean competition. Not only then does corporation A have to outcompete B, but must now outcompete the government
. And the government always wins, because it is violent. With no state and with greater privatization, there is also not just A and B, but C, D, E, F, and all the other infinite amount of possible letters as businesses come and go, shitty unsustainable ones leaving and the better ones remaining as funded by customers. Less government is less barriers of entry.
Corporation B can undersell all it wants, but when it is pressured on all sides not just financially from other people willing to sell even lower with cleaner practices, publicly the PR costs of keeping a good image can takes its toll because corporations do not have infinite money
. And that was just one example! Costs simply add up from inefficiency and bad practice, and when costs consistently exceed profit, it's out. Suddenly it's now a lot harder for B to stay in business without government assistance – the same assistance that shouldn't ever be there for shitty businesses just because of government connections.
>who had a government using force to stop corporations from doing stupid things.
On the contrary, is is government that precisely force people to do stupid things – that's what overregulation is all about.
>You also assume that violence isn't profitable
In the long-term, peace is absolutely more
profitable than violence. That is a core and central tenet of libertarianism; violence (a form of control) is just inefficient and self-destructive over a longer period of time. A thief can steal a man's wallet is extremely profitable for the thief, but nothing is actually made and other thieves can also continue the cycle of forced redistribution instead of production.
>Incorrect, slavery is incredibly profitable, at least until you run out of slaves
You confirm my own assertion and I thank you for that.
>>145616>What killed the slave trade was actually that slaves were no longer cheap. Being treated as disposable people depleted the african resource 'slaves'. They died and suffered en masse as they were depleted for profit.
Actually, you can thank the abolitionists who rightfully discouraged slavery on moral grounds. The institution of slavery was just fine from Ancient Greece to the Roman eras, there was never any shortage of fresh blood from Africa. There is still no shortage today in African shitholes, countries in a perpetual crisis of overpopulation as a result of government-subsidized "humanitarian" aid of foreigners. They enable these people to breed just so they can die in god-awful conditions, and they do so with stolen money from taxpayers! If that's not utterly twisted, I don't know what is.
But back to what you are saying, it did not matter how the slaves were treated or how they were "depleted" – there is virtually an infinite amount of them, and the market would have adjusted. The only way slavery was truly broken was by imagine this, government abandoning it, no longer supporting and reinforcing slavery by law
. Less government did wonders!
>The history of the sugar trade will teach you about capitalism. The history of anything will, to be honest.
Yes, histories of governments-sponsored industries
like the sugar trade and not the economical system of capitalism. Again, you continually ignore and turn a blind eye on the state-sponsored violence that propped your bloody industries up, redirecting it all as "capitalism" out of convenience.
>There are numerous examples, historically where corporations have acted in the exact opposite fashion to what you say they do. I am no fan of government, but there is no law of markets acting on them and such they can be anything.
And I am not saying that all corporations act perfectly and are all little angels either. But the conception of a corporation is not
a single entity: it allows for multiple competing establishments, with customers, a.k.a. the people
in charge of who gets funding, who survives the next business cycle. Not government. Not a violent monopoly that can always be lobbied, eager to bend the rules to whoever pays for it. Government is the problem, not corporations. The people can tame corporations just fine if governments do not tame the people first from the barrel of a gun.
What a disgusting statement. You say nature and neutrality sucks to justify your own violent control over it, over other people's lives! Perversion in its purest form.
>The idea that corporations will suddenly gain some magic market-proof precognition is nonsense.
Again, I have never made such a ridiculous claim. I have said time and time again that I want
corporations to fail, so that the undesirable ones are driven out to bankruptcy while the good ones remain. I make absolutely no statement that all
corporations are supposed to act in the people's best interest. You think I want these bad corporations to reform, to become somehow "good", I want them OUT of leeching the government's pockets to suffocate as fish do outside water. And this can only be done with the abolishment of the violent hand that feeds them.
>they'd maybe rely on a third party who can use force to prevent them from destroying the resources they rely on for business. They'd call it a government.
Which can also be accomplished from voluntary agreements between corporations alongside the terms of their contracts, complete with non-violent consequences and penalties. NOT an all-powerful government, because it does not force innocent people to fund its operations outside their decision. You are too quick to jump to conclusions as if government is the only answer when non-violent alternatives are possible.
Moreover, this "hird party who can use force to prevent them from destroying the resources they rely on" notion you hold so dear, that entity is precisely
what allows them to destroy the resources everybody relies on because it does so by special interest laws and lobbying!
>Government forms unnaturally. It is a completely unnatural force that forms when people realise that nature sucks and some kind of governing is required to reach a more sustainable existence.
Quite the speculation, when government is nothing more than bandit lords with the most weapons and force securing an area and then convincing the people they've conquered to love and justify them. Their civilians are so easily brainwashed when they've got the guns! You think people cannot have sustainable lives outside government? That once government is out of the picture, all roads, schools, buildings, and technology will suddenly vanish with it, as if they're not independent tools and systems? They be privatized, and that is what the government fears.
Or as you say "people realise that nature sucks and some kind of governing is required to reach a more sustainable existence." – what of those that do not wish to be "governed"?
They are given no choice, no say, no voice, they are simply silenced by brutality for dissenting the almighty arm of the state. You have no answer for this, because you are the one under the fundamental assumption that government is somehow something everybody likes and wants more and more of.
There are people who want out, and you pull them in!
>Until you can show that corporations will all agree (scouts honor) to work together for the long term good
Again, you continue to completely misunderstand the beauty behind libertarianism and corporations. They don't need all
to be somehow benevolent, that's utterly utopian and idealistic! The bad corporations must be culled, starved, and left to die, the good ones stay for so long as they remain valuable to the people with products and services they actually want. The people decide their fate, not the state. The corporations will fight and fight each other in competition, because money is no longer so easily given as a subsidy, it must actually be earned from actually offering a products and services people want!
And what the people want, naturally, is some goddamn peace and not violence, not war, not their currency manipulated, not being mere voting pawns to pander to in mock democracy spectacles as if to insult their intelligence. People want what is in their own individual self-interest, and only corporations can deliver that, not an omnipotent state constructed from bureaucracy outside the people's choice!
>>145616>historical examples of corporations working together unequivocally for the greater good and not their own, or maybe foolproof examples where corporations are immune to illogical behaviour
Your request is so unimaginably silly, as if you wish for absolutely all corporations to be forever benevolent and perfect as what you may perceive a utopian state to be.You keep trying to twist a logical argument into an emotional one
, complete with meaningless fluff words like "the greater good" on behalf of people as if people don't know what's good for themselves, their own self-interest
. You insult the intelligence of your own people.
Again, it doesn't matter what the corporations are concerned with, they only need be concerned with profit, the same profit that the customers decide with their own money.
You act like corporations are supposed to make people feel good
like what a state can lie to you with cheesy poetic rhetoric. A corporation need not necesssarily make people feel good
, it only need to do good
by selling people what they want or else it doesn't get money and dies. It only needs to be concerned about profit, not feelings, and certainly not violence.
>Corporations are not people.
So isn't the government. They are composed and paid for by people, one by violence, and one voluntarily.
>another big fallacy of the libertarian worldview is that people are always logical and rational
This is laughably false. The entire point is that some people are more logical and rational than others, allowing them to earn more instead of violently looting and pillaging each other's resources. This extends to corporations, where some are also more logical and rational than others in offering people goods and services by their business decisions. Good businesses must sell something valuable to have enough money to keep itself alive, while bad ones wither from a lack of income. That is the beauty behind capitalim's efficiency, not just praying and voting the next guy will be somehow magically different while the whole thing feeds of violence and theft. Results actually matter in capitalism, not brute force.
The bigger fallacy here is that you think corporations are supposed to as benevolent as a utopian state for them to be ideal. Libertarians do not want one corporation to rule them all
, That's called a government
. Competition between countless corporations all wanting to please the public for their money, natural divisions of power, better ones triumphing over the bad, all without bothering people in their private lives with taxation – that's what libertarianism means, not just another substitute for a more violent and controlling governments promising it is better than the last.
>>145629>Let's take the last 30 years; tobacco is basically confirmed to kill 30% of the people who are addicted to it.
who again, choose themselves to be addicted by continuing to actively participate in it instead of seeking help, treatment, and quitting
>So, with the knowledge that something is lethal to large numbers of people, would you be guilty of a crime if you marketed this to a new market of billions of people without telling them it's lethal?>without telling them it's lethal>nobody knew that inhaling smelly black smoke into them will eventually kill them!
Is that really something you believe? it's astounding that you don't realize that normies continue to do things that can kill them anyways because they can. They don't really care, and so shouldn't the state, that's nothing more than their problem, not yours
>there's no requirement for them to tell people how lethal their product is.
The Chinese are notorious smokers, it is part of their culture. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do?
I don't even smoke, in fact I hate smokers with a passion, but the bottom line is that people should have the freedom to kill themselves slowly or otherwise. It's not the market, it's the people
. The only thing anybody can do is just ignore them publicly and get them to stay the hell off their private property.
Same thing with alcohol, and it seems as if you're willing to push how "deadly" and "toxic" alcohol may be despite that being a key feature and appeal for normies to poison themselves with.
>promoting the death of dozens millions of people for their own personal gain
People choose to smoke. It's not personal, but mutual gain
. Smokers want cigs, businesses sell them some. They have that freedom to again, do what they want with their goddamn lungs. Now you'll expect me to pay for their treatment too? Disgusting.
>This is why they are worse than stalin.
People wish stalin could only promote and offer a product, not push them into gulag and work camps.
>but it's not phillip morris pouring in billions of dollars of advertising who will tell you this.
Advertising that anybody with a brain can ignore.
Whose entire existence can be attributed to their extremely close relationship with the government. You say "evil corporation this and that", ignoring that monsanto's patents, industry regulations, and control are all enforced by the government
>Corporations are self-destructively efficient. That is their strength it is also their weakness.
Which is why the self-destructive ones must not be given state funding/support/advantageous laws so the better ones can take their place.
A government is what cements self-destructive corporations in the first place.
>For one, corporation A can publicize and smear corporation B for its destructive practices and get customers not to trust it, meaning less revenue from increasing public FUD.
Smear campaings are costly and assuming B is getting more revenue it should have more to spent on countersmearing.
Public economics 101. Free market leads to Pareto optimal solution, unless there is asymmetric information or externalities. This is a basic example of negative externality, as in type of consumption that imposes a cost to others.
Though the libertarian solution would be privatization of the fishing waters, as there would be an incentive to not overfish.
>>146167>Smear campaings are costly and assuming B is getting more revenue it should have more to spent on countersmearing.
That is true, but countersmearing does not always completely counter nor does just having more propaganda money mean you are more effective (see: 2017 U.S. presidential election). Furthermore, B would not only have to countersmear A but everyone else as mentioned because it is a free market, meaning little barriers of entry. The costs would just be immense, and the assumption that B always
nets more than A and friends cannot be taken as an absolute when the entire point of a free market is that nothing is ever permanent.
B may take the lead for a while from poor practices, but there is just no sustainable way for that to continue indefinitely without government on its side – the very reason why some of the bigger corps just so love to lobby away to make laws compared to smaller businesses crushed by law.
Months into Trump admin, beady-eyed shithouse rat McInsane is struck down.
Proof that even god wants to MAGA.
He's probably in the 10% that survives, and will come back more of an ornery old coot than ever.
You are committing a crime if you trick someone into getting addicted to a harmful substance. Addiction is a physiological change as much as punching someone in the face, and tricking someone into hurting themselves via addiction is still unethical.
Now what about tricking billions of people into hurting themselves? For profit?
That's just the free market.
>>146167>Though the libertarian solution would be privatization of the fishing waters
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE
>>146809>You are committing a crime if you trick someone into getting addicted to a harmful substance. Addiction is a physiological change as much as punching someone in the face, and tricking someone into hurting themselves via addiction is still unethical. Now what about tricking billions of people into hurting themselves? For profit?
Nobody is tricking anybody, seriously not everybody has a victim mentality. First, to be addicted you must actually do it the first time when they weren't addicted, so they still do it onto themselves regardless. Normies buy self-destructive consumables all the time, be it tobacco or alcohol. They did it so with their own volition, their own money, and it doesn't matter if it's harmful or not. They do it to themselves
, and they will do stupid shit regardless. That's their choice. Should the buyer should be exempt from blame if they pay
other people to punch them in the face? That is what it essentially is. BDSM normies explicitly enjoy pain by definition, so some normies really do pay other normies to hurt them because they wanted to get hurt! They choose it so. And they can always choose not to at any given time.
Second, "physiological change" isn't much of an argument. If I sell someone really good food, and they continue to overeat on it into obesity, is that somehow my fault? They say food just tastes really good to them, that they are addicted
to it. Now am I supposed to stop selling food to everybody
just because a few people do not have any self-control? Some people can enjoy good food in moderation, some not so much. That's on them, not me.
There's no denying it though, yes, it would be wrong if I told him that eating my food would make him lose weight despite it actually making him gain more, because that is blatant misinformation, and it really is awful that some corporations "lie" to people via marketing. Often it's just misrepresentation using wordplay, but I guess people are still "lied to". But misinformation is one thing, and people acting stupid on their own is another. If he so foolish to keep going, that is his own problem. I could tell him that he's hurting himself in the long-run, and some do listen, but some also don't care about themselves and I'm not the boss of their life. If that's how they want to die, so be it. Why should I deprive someone from dying as happily as they lived?
At any time, do you know what else he can do though? Decline. Say no. Kick the habit, get help with other normies that also want to kick the habit. They stop buying in protest, but you cannot stop people from selling to others on behalf of everybody without being violent. You can tell everyone you know and the world of your bad experience with it, open a website, start a movement, literally anything and everything else is fair game except barbaric cruelty of force from people who have no self-control. And if you can justify your violence, so can your opponents, and some people have more guns than others. This is why violence never works in the long-run and things worse for everybody involved.
The best course of action is to just not fall for it yourself if you do not like it.
Now what about enslaving people to tell them what they can and can't do under an arbitrary bureaucracy just because some people said so? For the "greater good"? My greater good or their "greater good"? Why, the "greater good" of "the people" of course, which if it's a majority would be just 51%! 49% of people aren't getting a very good "greater good", because only politicians can apparently decide that, not people in their own goddamn lives with what they can own goddamn do with it. Go and try to ban alcohol again, I don't even smoke or drink but I know better than to waste time policing shitty normies from slowly killing themselves when the world would be better with less shitty normies around.
Keeping shitty normies alive with no self-control for easy votes? That's just the government.
>>146812>First, to be addicted you must actually do it the first time when they weren't addicted, so they still do it onto themselves regardless
Your doctor recommends our cigarettes as they're good for your health
>crtl+f "cuck" "roastie" "nigger" "faggot" "kike"
Well fuck me I always thought this thread would just be /pol/-lite but it seems like there's some good conversation here, might have to participate in one of these threads myself.
>>146816>being recommended something now means you're absolutely forced to do it
think for yourself.
Second-hand smoke is also hazardous. But you wouldn't know this if you lived in china since the tobacco industry controls the information and as such, you have absolutely no awareness of the hazards of simply being around someone who smokes.
Your inability to see the problem is astounding. If you're persuaded to do something with the argument "It is good for you" then you're an idiot?
Refuse from frequenting places that allow it. If you don't, it's because you don't really think it's that much of a problem. This is mostly a problem with nightclubs anyway, so I don't see why it matter so much for wizards. No, there is no excuse to "but I can't choose it", you can. Whether your favorite nightclub would allow or disallow it would only depend on how many of its customers would place that much importance on smoking being allowed or not, and if they didn't, then it really is their own values shaping their environment.
You don't need a scientist or doctor to know that being around smoke and smokers is bad for you. And if they do, well, then I'm sure smoking would be the least of their problems if the knowledge that clean air is better than polluted air is lost on an instinctive level. Second-hand smoking or not, I utterly hate even the whiff of the stuff and I make this absolutely clear. I grew up with smokers and drunks and I have ZERO tolerance or remorse for such self-destructive normies. They can go ahead and poison themselves elsewhere in peace until they're ready to communicate, otherwise I choose to excuse myself if the cost/benefit between temporarily tolerating their presence permits it.
Again, it doesn't matter what any "information" says. If one doesn't like something, they can do something about it unless they're forced to put up with it at gunpoint (hint hint). One can move, distance, or isolate themselves, or just negotiate into mutually beneficial outcomes: "This is a private no-smoking area; if you value entry higher than smoking in the moment, then you are to cease smoking or smell like you've recently smoked in order to go proceed." Restrictions, penalties, these are not difficult to grasp and even the lowliest of normies can understand these practices. Sadly most normies only understand violence, it seems.
But the point is that nobody has to be affected by it unless they wanted to. The problem is that sometimes they are forced
to be affected, which is the problem with government. More of it is not the answer. It's funny even you bring up China, undoubtedly a notorious authoritarian country as enforced by the state. If those people had the freedom to not accept smokers in their lives, then certainly more would take advantage of it. Doubt their state will ever allow it though. And that's on the state's hands, not mine.
Regardless, passively accepting something non-violent is still accepting it.>>146963
The doctor is not forcing me. I can tell him to piss off at any given time. Nobody knows what's "good" for me except myself. And unless you're forcing me at gunpoint, one can always politely decline and go somewhere else or just give them the bird and leave.
Otherwise, it seems like you're meaning to suggest that people are to mindlessly and blindly do whatever their doctor tells them to do. How silly. Doctors can and do make mistakes, and you do not need "information" or another doctor to confirm this. Skepticism is a choice.
I still stand by my statement: think for yourself and do your own homework. The choice is always yours unless at gunpoint with hands tied.
>>146966>You talk tough, but you wouldn't be so tough if you were a wealthy inmate in prison and some guy forcibly introduced you to hard drugs so he could profit from another junkie customer.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say. I'm being forced
by some guy to consume hard drugs? Forced, right? Like the state does? You prove exactly my own points.
Unless you're implying that every
addict in the history of addiction were all
forced in the same fashion into such a spiral of self-destruction, then what you've illustrated is just what the state does on a regular basis every day, granting my criticism of it every bit of further legitimacy.
This has nothing to do with social darwinism, because unlike lesser animals people choose
their circumstances – to advance or to cripple themselves from their own short-sightedness, from their own sub-optimal decisions. But it's still their decision. Savage animals do not enjoy this kind of freedom, they exclusively act on how they presently feel and must attribute the entirety of their own actions to external factors in order to evade any and all blame. Sound a bit familiar?
You people amuse me. I offer nothing but liberty, freedom, choice, and self-determination. Your counter-arguments? Victimhood and Violence
Finally a wizard with the right idea.
>>146963>If you're persuaded to do something with the argument "It is good for you" then you're an idiot?
Alright, I think I've got it better now and my answer is even simpler.
You had willingly and voluntarily, deliberately and intentionally, agreed by your own conscious free will to do what you've been persuaded to do? Then you assume responsibility for your actions in agreeing to the terms of what you've been persuaded on.
I am sorry, but I actually would call anyone who mindlessly and blindly obeys anything that claims it's "just good for you, trust me" as an idiot. This is not an insult, I use it in the strictest medical term it originally held.
Appeals to authority is a fallacy for a reason. Doctors make mistakes, and doctors sometimes try to push unnecessary bullshit on people. Call them out, and get them to do their job properly or rightfully threaten to publicize their bad practices and have them stripped of their license. A doctor worth their salt wouldn't dare risk it for something trivial and will wise up relatively quickly.
You can't legislate this kind of natural corruption away from people, only skepticism from individuals can keep them on their toes and to keep them acting on your best interest, in fear of slipping up and getting hit by the consequences clearly highlight beforehand.
Now this doesn't mean I'm always personally a dick to doctors or that people should always be dicks to doctors in general. But you can't just be taken advantage of like that and be pushed around, wizards easily get eaten alive by chads that way. The biggest chad is always the state, barbaric to its core acting the same way.
I see what you're coming from now. Your stance is 'People that are tricked, fooled, scammed or deceived deserve it.'.
I suppose we shouldn't punish scammers either. Fraud? It's your fault for falling for it.
At least we've distilled down to your fundamental beliefs: Everyone should be an expert in everything, and if they are ignorant in one thing and it results in their death it's completely their fault, even if it would require more time than they have a live to get to that level of knowledge.
I was trying to bring to mind the role luck plays as in the unforgiving circumstance of prison. People like to discount luck, but the genetic shuffle that produced you was a stroke of luck, good or ill. You might go on about choice, but decisions are very much made at the genetic level even if it is not completely. I don't know if you believe in the NAP, but it seems out of place when the most net injurious action of all, reproduction, continues in a mad way. At the very least, eugenics seems like a must being the issue at the root rather than a symptom. For how much you hold forth about free will, you were helpless as your own mother forced you into this world. You offer nothing but a painted cake and an inability to grasp fundamental human nature.>>146976
If you're the guy that's been in contention with them all this time, you should have realized by now they're nigh sociopathic. I'm not judging or insulting, just making a statement.
Before he was born he should have done the necessary research and not been a fucking moron and allowed himself to be born.
>>146976>Your stance is 'People that are tricked, fooled, scammed or deceived deserve it.'.>deserve
There's that word again. That's not my stance at all. I do not think people "deserve" to be tricked, fooled, scammed, or deceived. Allow me to clarify. My stance is simple: You are responsible for your actions. This has nothing to do with who deserves what, it is people making conscious decisions when not under the threat of force, followed by the benefits or consequences of their own said decision. Nothing, absolutely nothing, about "deserve". What an ugly word that is.
>I suppose we shouldn't punish scammers either. Fraud? It's your fault for falling for it.
Yes and no, with the key difference being if it happens on someone's own choice and the terms of the exchange. If a scammer offer someone a shitty product X, and that person still buys product X knowing what it is on their own decision, yes I will not deny that the person had it coming for being an idiot. Sorry if it's blunt and a bit cold, but really, what is a "scam" in this scenario? A person buying a product they had high expectations of and being let down? You get what you pay for, as advertised. Swallow the loss, and do your own homework next time.
This is what I would call to be a "Perception Scam", because one perceived something as something else but the product remains the same. Fools fall for perception scams, because it stems entirely from an error of one's judgement, not the product.
Now comes the part where it's not
in their choice, breaching a contract. If someone offered product X online, and you got something else completely different like product Y from the mail, obviously you have been scammed. Now, the terms of the exchange suggested you were to get X but you received Y, which happened without
your prior knowledge. If you had known you were to receive Y beforehand, that may of completely changed your purchasing decision.
This is what must rightly be called an "Actual Scam", because one received a completely different product as per the terms of the exchange. This was an error of product, not of one's judgement.
The distinction between perception scams and actual scams is extremely important, because the word "scam" in general has been watered down to mean both without further context. And yet, one type of scam is wholly the fault of the buyer, while the other is the fault of the seller. The line is very clear and I cannot stress this enough. The same can be said of any other synonym within the same family like the word "swindle", which someone can use to describe an error of judgement on their part as the buyer, or use to describe an error of product on the part of the seller. Context is king.
Now back to your doctor example, that was a clear perception scam. If the doctor offered you candy but you got a cigarette instead, well yes, obviously that's a fault of the doctor and that's bad. He is right to be punished accordingly. But if the doctor offers you a cigarette, and you actually do receive a cigarette, and you smoke it, that's all on you. No punishment is needed, because you had in that moment taken responsibility for accepting the cigarette as offered, you choose
to do so. You cannot choose whether or not the doctor gives you candy or a cigarette.
The same principle applies to fraud, which are more accurate in exclusively describing actual scams. You did not choose to have your identity stolen by someone else. That is obviously a crime. But if say, you choose to write down your account details, drop it in the public city square or post it on a public forum, and then proceed to complain that your information was stolen, it is both the fraudster's fault for stealing your identity and taking your money, and
the scammed's fault for being a complete idiot when he could have been far more responsible.
Think of it this way, drunk driver "accidents" are completely the fault of the drunk driver, not the car manufacturer for not making a car strong enough to withstand the crash, or the fault of the other party for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. People who make errors of judgement are at fault for their own actions.
An error of product however, if the driver was not drunk at all and the car broke down while driving leading to a legitimate accident – the manufacturer is completely and entirely responsible for the lives lost because the driver had no choice in what was happening.
Whether or not something was voluntary, if it was chosen to be so, is the line that separates theft and charity, rape and consensual sex for normies. Failure to distinguish between this is to completely ignore the role of individual agency, a constant that cannot be legislated away or assumed by the government without distorting what it is to be a free liberated human.
>At least we've distilled down to your fundamental beliefs: Everyone should be an expert in everything, and if they are ignorant in one thing and it results in their death it's completely their fault, even if it would require more time than they have a live to get to that level of knowledge.
I'm sorry, but no. I never
said everyone should be an expert in everything, and I never
said that everything that causes death is the fault of the person that died. Try again.
The only thing we've distilled here is the false equivalence you have between the choice smoking and someone legitimately dying from external circumstances outside their control.
>>146979>I was trying to bring to mind the role luck plays as in the unforgiving circumstance of prison.>of prison>which people are generally jailed for because of their own bad conscious decisions and poor judgement as determined by the justice system
Prison is one of the worst examples you could have used. A good lot of people directly or indirectly otherwise choose
to be in prison because they choose
to commit a crime and got caught. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
>People like to discount luck, but the genetic shuffle that produced you was a stroke of luck, good or ill.
Which is up to you in how you use you manage your genetics. A man born with a crippling genetic disease can choose to take medicine that may grant him a normal life, or according to you, just die because he was "unlucky". Choice reigns supreme.
>You might go on about choice, but decisions are very much made at the genetic level even if it is not completely
Genes do not your dictate your choices. You do. It is you who interpret the world, not your genes. Your genes have given you a penis, yes? (I hope so). Must you now have sex because "my genes said I must insert penis into vagina"? No. You had chosen to be a wizard, chosen to be celibate and not participate in sex. Genes, can effectively go fuck themselves. Man is whatever he makes himself, not the god's.
> I don't know if you believe in the NAP, but it seems out of place when the most net injurious action of all, reproduction, continues in a mad way.
I don't understand. Please elaborate further and explain.
>At the very least, eugenics seems like a must being the issue at the root rather than a symptom. For how much you hold forth about free will, you were helpless as your own mother forced you into this world.
And you tell me I do not have the choice of dismissing myself at any given time? That choice is as available to me as anyone else still alive.
I am not saying that suicide is easy, but that is
>You offer nothing but a painted cake and an inability to grasp fundamental human nature.
oh the irony in someone talking about "fundamental human nature" and discredits choice. Human
nature, not a savage animal's, is precisely what has given us the ability to freely choose as we please against the dictatorship of instinct. Human nature is
>you should have realized by now they're nigh sociopathic
Sociopathy implies active malicious intent. My intent is as utterly and absolutely neutral as they come, because I do not care. You choose, and you're responsible for whatever happens, not me.
Funny how being hands-off is seen as a sociopathic trait, which, would be someone very hands-on with malice against others.>>146988
Yet the option to permanently exit on one's own terms is still there. I highly recommend it to you.
>>147013>I don't understand. Please elaborate further and explain.
I mean libertarians go after all the little aggressions like violent conflict while ignoring the elephant in the room that is the violent birth of a human being into a merciless world. The ideology is so contingent upon everything being on your own terms it's almost like I'm talking to someone who still full-on believes in tabula rasa
. Now there is nothing wrong per se with being (perceived as) a sociopath due to one's beliefs/actions just as no one deserves anything, but I think that most of us wizards or normans alike would not be happy with more of them around.
I understand how you might feel that way towards libertarians and childbirth, but as an antinatalist myself you must understand that while being born is not of our control, leaving always is.
What's more, is that libertarianism is so flexible that you also have the freedom
to actively encourage people NOT to have children. What can a state do about it? Nothing, you are free. With no central taxation, there is no need to pressure more potential taxpayers into this world. You do see why other ideologies naturally must
value childbirth right? They need more workers, soldiers, and of course, voters. Libertarianism is not hindered by such petty concerns: you are free to believe whatever you'd like personally, if it means convincing others of antinatalism or otherwise. The only thing in common with other libertarians is the same desire for freedom: what is to be done with that freedom, is of course, up to the individual. And that can absolutely include antinatalism.
The idea behind libertarianism is not that everything
is up to one's control, because that would be silly. Some things are controllable, and some things aren't, and I am fully aware of that. However, what libertarianism emphasizes is that a great lot of things
are more controllable (and as a result, responsible) than most people think. You choose so much in your life, from what you eat, what you wear, what you do in your free time, what you wish to do for a living or rather, not
do anything as a NEET. You are free to choose.
Yet when the same idea of choice is extended further in the lives of normies, oh are they so quick to highlight external circumstances while eating food of their choosing, wearing clothes of their choosing, and in a place and time of their choosing to make such complaints about petty normie conflicts. They
are what is wrong, not me! Never me! Utterly fascinating. No more has anything made me more libertarian that normies and their endless hypocrisy, so fearful of admitting self-fault. I embrace my own faults. I am not perfect, but I can choose to "improve" materialistic normie endeavors or choose to shitpost and do what I like with my time remaining celibate. I've made my choice, and they're damn angry about it.
While on the topic of choice, now I am not saying every decision is easy or practical, but it nonetheless generally remains possible. Moving to a new location can be extremely difficult with lots of spontaneous unknowns and uncertainties, but it is a choice. And one can also choose to anticipate such difficulties beforehand to plan accordingly, or choose to neglect it. Either way, they decide, and they choose whatever happens in their life and how they wish to live it, a great portion of the time. You do not choose when it rains, but you do choose if whether or not you bring an umbrella with you just in-case.
Where and how this line between what is controllable and what is not within people's lives is what separates libertarianism from other schools of thought economically and politically, and of course causes great frustrations among people because everyone naturally wants to minimize responsibility. A father abandons his child in fear of being part of it, of being a possible bad influence and bad father, but at the same time he could also choose to be a better influence and good father instead. By forfeiting freedom, you lose the choice to do better than the default: an absent father scars their child forever.
I know I'm rambling, but I like talking about these things because to me the topic is very exciting: not full of blind optimism nor pessimism, but a practical approach that accounts for both given the decisions leading to an outcome. And while certainly nobody is ever truly tabula rasa, does not everyone bleed the same color upon being struck? Is not death the same for everybody? This is death that can be self-inflicted. Some things, while uncontrollable by nature, can still be even greater controlled by man. We have the last word, the last laugh, the power
of choice above the natural imposition by the gods.
As far as sociopaths go, I'm indifferent to the label. Just another ad-hominem attack, non-arguments washing off like rain against that umbrella. But realize now, that while sociopaths are supposed to be completely lacking in empathy towards others: I am greatly angered at the regular and institutionalized violence inflicted on human beings by other human beings, by normies on wizards, in the name of the state, of their charged emotions and not voluntary agreement. Pay your taxes or else
! To me, if that is not empathy, empathy against the most raw, most brutal, most powerful physical cruelty of sheer savagery, I do not know what is.
People do not fear sociopaths, they fear themselves for knowing they act and support their own sociopathy. And so they label anyone that does not agree with their brand of sociopathy as inhuman for seeing the most human injustice possible: Obey! Give us money or we'll fucking kill you! Everyone is a sociopath according to their enemies, "more" or "less" sociopaths just means "more" or "less" people that disagree with them. What matters is what these supposed "sociopaths" actually do, and it is incredible that out of all things, a "sociopath" can advocate for non-violence!
Pic is one of the most influential images I had ever seen in my youth from history textbooks. How does one commit to such extreme expression of government protest? He could of just as easily continued being a monk under oppression, passively supporting his circumstances with bitter silence. But no, in his boldness the monk did what nobody else dared to do: He spoke up, and decided to set himself on fire as a statement. He chose to. What a sociopath he must be, to scare and implement fear to his observers, to make them question the nature of their violent enslavement by governments all around them, foreign and local. No consideration at all for their feelings!
About that picture, you have to remember the VC had infiltrated the pagodas, and the CIA had a hand in the events leading up to that point even if he was probably not drugged. It may be of interest that others have self-immolated in protest against the government in Vietnam, all for naught. I'd say most of the world still isn't ready for liberal democracy broadly speaking let alone libertarianism. The South Vietnamese didn't appreciate how good they had it back then, and I'm not sure you do now with our democratic republic even ailing as it is (assuming you're a fellow American). I am curious though if you are happy being the rational person you are. Doesn't everyone want to be happy? How do your libertarian beliefs relate with your choice to be happy?
Yes, you're right, truly does government of any allegiance meddle in the affairs of people's lives. I still think the self-immolation protests played a large role of fueling a strong anti-war sentiment locally from those not pictured and internationally from that one photo. Certainly opened my eyes to the full horrors of war, alongside Napalm succubus and Street Execution. Not war in the grisly sense of blood and bombs in person, but war as an ideology: throwing body after body of innocent people until great leader/the president gets what he wants. I can see why those that come back from Vietnam are never the same not from what they've seen or physically felt, but what they've come to think about it all mentally as a result of such experiences. They've just connected the dots and it clicked.
The world can never be ready "liberal democracy" because democracy is destined to fail every time eventually. In democracy, there is always a winner, always a loser, today's oppressed and tomorrow's revolutionary. It's simply a fundamental aspect of democracy ruling other
people's lives just because they've got the higher mob count for votes. I hate the word democracy so much because people are taught that it is an intrinsically "good" thing, like some magic word that negates any of its critical faults. "Democratic" Socialism is apparently different from regular Socialism, but when one reads their party platform, the end goals and means of achieving it are exactly the same thing!
On the other hand, the world is only as ready for libertarianism as much as people value freedom and independence. The moment people realize that they don't have to inflict violence on others to keep the world spinning, that is the moment it can be possible. This is in stark comparison to any other political philosophy regardless if it's a republic or democracy: other men rule over others not by their choice. It doesn't matter if it's tyranny by a minority or tyranny by the majority, tyranny is all the same. The idea is to abandon tyranny altogether and that is what libertarianism seeks to accomplish among people.
The problem though is not that libertarianism is ideologically flawed, it is just that it is too truthful for most people that it hurts. The ultimate irony is that when offered freedom, some people choose to forfeit it. And so they inflict that same decision upon others as the default. And when those people get enough power, they teach it onto the children by force to cement their rule, to legitimize and idolize broken systems like democracy as somehow through Olympics-level mental gymnastics it is synonymous with freedom when it is precisely the opposite.
How is democracy enforced? They won't tell you, it's magic just because it's so good. Certainly not by self-defense, but by active offense. "Let us bring democracy in the east and further
destabilize it! The public thinks
democracy is always
fool-proof!" It's disgusting. Look at where we are indeed, a nation split and a nation unsure of what it really is anymore. Thank you, democracy!
That's what I think of our once proud constitutional "democratic" republic. They just had
to establish a central bank, to get us into pointless wars as their
"world police", to have social programs left and right and identity crises among the populace. We had such a beautiful thing going for us when we kept to ourselves and had the freedom to simply not give a flying fucking damn about other people's business unless we wanted to. Now we're forced to!
>I am curious though if you are happy being the rational person you are.
I'm "happy" in the sense that I'm currently pleased with the decisions I've made with my life so far. Could some things have been better planned? Absolutely. But I've made my decision at the time with the information present to me and so here I am. General happiness is not an absolute state, it is a process, and as its name conveys, a mood. I currently "feel" happy, I suppose. Utterly subject to change depending on the time of day and other external circumstances.
It must be raised, that the only real permanent kind of "happiness" is the most valued and precious thing conceivable: a peaceful death, not granted by suicide, not granted by dying in war. But a peaceful death by a long life of fulfillment and acquired knowledge, acquired wisdom. That is real happiness, and so I can not really be happy until I get there.
>Doesn't everyone want to be happy?
I cannot answer for everybody but I would imagine that there is a natural instinctive inclination towards a general state of the mood described as "happiness". The depressed will disagree, but they are more exceptions than the rule. What this means though, is that while people may want
happiness, they can only really choose
to pursue it. Waiting around to be "happy" from want alone simply does nothing, unless one's conception is to wait until they're happy. But hunger, bodily functions, and self-preservation still prompts them to move and do things to secure basic needs anyways, meaning that again, they must choose to secure those needs or choose to silently starve themselves to death. Up to them.
People choose whether or not they actually accomplish happiness instead of relying on want and waiting alone.
>How do your libertarian beliefs relate with your choice to be happy?
I've rambled again so I will make this one especially short, or at least try: Happiness is earned, not given.
And that means choosing to earn it, not have it given by the state. If the state could give happiness, people would have voted it in a long time ago. But it can't. It can only give while simultaneously take more and more until nothing is left. People however, independent and free, they can take all they want out of life. Life has plenty to give. They can choose to finally earn happiness on their own terms.
Basically, it relates back to libertarianism in the sense that I have the freedom to choose how I can be happy in my own life. A state cannot tell me what can make me happy nor can it be given to me by law. I decide, and I decide alone. Happiness simply cannot be legislated for anyone, and any effort of trying only breeds unhappiness for all.
>>145060>I don't think you're exploiting your mom at all though
It's hard to say. I don't really want to go into detail about it, but there are a few things that make me think she's emotionally caught between a rock and a hard place. They're subtle, and maybe I'm just projecting, but maybe I'm not. You could be right though.
>being taken cared of by family and community which was in line with Mises/Rothbard to my knowledge so no principles are broken
Well, obviously the community should ideally take care of the disabled. Many Libertarians would argue that a local community whose sense of voluntary charity hasn't been atrophied by becoming reliant on federal redistribution of wealth would be far more efficient and better able to take care of the needy. This can even include people who aren't fully disabled but just down on their luck, like myself. But it would also be ideal that these particular people, this second group, would only be temporarily supported, so they don't regress into a hedonistic lifestyle, and contribute to society, increasing the total amount of wealth produced. The local community would be far better able to determine when exactly to cut them off, which is why this way of organizing society would be argued to be more efficient and superior to one that is organized around a centralized power that inefficiently and immorally redistributes wealth for an entire large country.
Because I'm not completely unable to land a job, I feel like I am towing a certain monetary hedonism. I am not contributing to growth, I am just wasting my days away. Obviously Hoppe wouldn't argue that people like me wouldn't occur in a Libertarian society, just that there would be far less of them. He'd say his vision of the world is the best IN SPITE of people like me. His vision is better precisely because there are LESS people like me (as well as many other reasons).
>there's definitely other jobs out there if you keep searching. look elsewhere, jobs you didn't consider beforehand.
In the few weeks since I've written that original post, I actually have forced myself to ask my mom, reach out to extended family members, even a couple of old high school teachers to see if they have anything available. None of them had anything that didn't require lifting (which I can't do because of my health problems). Once I told them I couldn't lift, they said they'd try to keep an eye out for other jobs. None of them have gotten back to me, and I'm not holding my breath. I've poked around, looking for other opportunities. Nothing that doesn't require physical labor or cheery, face-to-face interaction.
And if the call center didn't exist, then that would be it. I would have no choice but to depend on my mom, so I wouldn't be betraying my principles. But it does. And because plenty of more normal people have to work call center jobs, I can't even complain. I mean, granted, it's not NEARLY as hard for them as it will be for me, but still.
>godspeed m8, never give up your principles. it's one of those things that are free to develop but so valuable
Thank you for your kind words. You are right, they are so valuable, and right now I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. In the past few weeks I've given it a lot of though, and ultimately, I think I'm gonna choose the call center. I'm gonna try to find something else for a couple more weeks like you suggested, which I now know more than ever is a hail mary pass, but if that fails, then I'll accept my fate.
Yeah he's one of my favorites
>Im not really in too much politics to really say what I believe in as ideology but i am still exploring
what would be great about massive secession (like splitting the US into hundreds of voluntarily loosely affiliated micro-states) is that it would allow for people to try out and see what it's like to live in different kind of societies (assuming they would be allowed in each one). Also, once these micro-states can try pure versions of their ideologies, maybe we can see once and for all what the best system is. And if one is not allowed into certain micro-states they can always try to replicate it elsewhere. The market, the invisible guiding hand, will work it all out.>>147795
and essentially an ancap.
i think just restoring the country back into more state rights than micro-states is more realistic. we already kind of have it like that in the united states with California being "the lefty state" and Texas being "that christian right state". many more examples with other states too.
it seems like a good enough idea to still make it more local as a concept. i don't want Texas ruling over my home state nor do I want my home state ruling over Texas. i guess I agree with you for the most part
btw what do you libertarians mean by "The market, the invisible guiding hand, will work it all out."? is this a kind of religious thing? how does it magically fix itself? maybe i should just do my own research since I really shouldn't be here if i still don't have a kind of exact political "ideology" but i am just wondering what u guys mean when u say things like that.>>147811
this is my gripe with the libertarians. as you know this is a website mostly by and for neets. That picture just looks overdramatic to me, it's not really like that is it? when I see pictures like that it looks like you attacking my source of income and livelihood and i am sorry if I am not normalfag enough to wageslave, i have problems and can't properly communicate with people in person
how can this libertarianism really help neets like me? seems like you guys just want us to starve especially if my parents also depend on welfare
you do not have to wageslave, you can accumulate human capital (skills) thanks to internet and infoanarchism (piracy) and then climb social ladder
it is normalfagish to be Homo ludens and consume, party, drink alcohol, watch tv series etc
it is not normalfagish to have a job
socialism promotes normalfagotry and overt consumerism and pronatalism because the more children you have the more money you get in socialism even if you do not deserve in on market basis
so ancap is mizanthropic a bit and antinatalistic
if you cannot communicate with people in person you can become a programer or translator or work in corporation from behind computer desk etc. your social phobia is not an excuse not to work
in ancap you would be able to depend on charity also your parents would earn more
The core goal of a welfare state is to push everyone towards some type of work, tax them heavily, and then use those taxes to purchase goods and industrial services (like construction) at a much lower cost. The government can also manage the types of construction, to ensure that everyone is at least housed. "At least housed" or "at least fed" or "at least with healthcare" is actually where most welfare states wind up stopping. Usually, they can only really do one, and that one thing will vary wildly among states. Often, post-soviet states will do full healthcare, since they don't have the sort of hyperpaid doctors that exist in the west. Food is beyond their reach, and housing is really beyond their reach, but they'll usually have some type of price fixing measure in place.
There's no such thing as a full welfare state, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss the entire concept. It's a hell of a lot more straightforward when you're talking about a more managed (not necessarily centralized) economic system.
When you try to do it in Capitalism, you wind up with shit like this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html
Well don't I feel stupid. That particular story is more of a "hypothetical thought experiment" about what possibly could happen in Germany, under their workfare system. I'm sure men wind up in dangerous physical jobs from these systems all the time, to no fanfare.
>>147820>to push everyone towards some type of work
so why welfare states pay ppl for not working?
i am sory but I am just not smart enough to program or translate or really work behind the computer competing with tons of normies online for pennies or whatever. a wizard here was talking about something called mturk a while ago and that really sucked. anything more complicated than that doesnt work for me because my english is very poor and I have no high school education. I don't want one anyways I like being at home after my parents failed to homeschool me
what am i even talking about, I don't work. i don't like that you think my problems are all social phobia, I just do not communicate the same way normies do and i like that my government helps to support me and my family.
i don't think we can live on charity alone, that sounds really hard and unrealistic. who gives all their money away to feed another family? and my parents do not even work anymore as well so I dont see how they can earn more as well
like i said I am open to ideas but sometimes you libertarians are much too extreme for me. same thing with the communists working class that wants everyone to work or the nazi that wants to gas me. i kind of like the way things are, it has gotten me and my family pretty far but no extreme can help us
i don't know, smaller gov sounds nice though i mean as long as my state continues to support its people then it can't be too bad, it does not need to bother other states
where do you live?
>>147824> who gives all their money away to feed another family?
normies give percent o their income to the poor to feel better
i know that but they can stop anytime and it would not be very stable. imagine not knowing the next time when you get to eat that sounds awful
>>147840>there will come a day when all the normalfags will die in terror as their civilization burns to the ground and industrial society collapses, never to rise again
God be praised. Give me an approximate year so I can mark it down in anticipation.
This is the truth and perhaps the one of the few clear wake up calls on this board. This warning needs to be spread. However, your message is likely wasted on this, or any other forum on wizchan.
This is the truth and perhaps one of the few clear wake up calls on this board. This warning needs to be spread. However, your message is likely wasted on this, or any other board on wizchan.
>>147844>vast, disproportionate majority of that bullying is aimed at wizards.
most bullied people get laid sooner or later
North Korea at it again with motherfucking intercontinental missiles. He might just actually pull it off this time given enough tries to finally fend off all the imperialist normies and chads that surround him. People are saying he might strike Hawaii or California first, so west coast and island wizzies prepare yourselves accordingly.
I still can't believe this is actually happening.
>Mirror: State broadcaster claims North Korea has 'fired missile that has landed in Japanese waters'https://archive.is/t7Dgv
yeah I wish
Russian satellite data proved the last test missile fell short of its alleged range.by like 80%. No doubt the latest test was similarly dismal, with the fucking kikes lying again about the results.
Gotta justify their escalating aggression against NK by claiming it now has half of burgerland in the nuclear crosshairs.
Usually, that's one of 5 things :
>Rotating system of "vacations" to manipulate and regulate the labor wage>Disabilities preventing labor>Long-term maternity leave in Maternalist Socialist nations>Wildly out of control fraud, or poorly designed system that will soon collapse>Propaganda, as in, they aren't actually paying people to not work
non-arguments are stupid
you can do some hobbies better when you do it with someone else
Ancap, or Anarcho-Capitalism, in a nutshell is having no central government (anarchy) while still fulfilling all of a government's roles and functions through voluntary transactions and private businesses (capitalism). Naturally there would be no compulsory taxation of any kind as enforced by violence, and people would have the private property and freedom to do whatever they please with their life, including and especially wizardry.
Ancap is basically freedom taken to its logical extreme as more than a personal philosophy: free markets, free people, and a free society. But keep this in mind because this is what most people overlook: Ancap is freedom from government, not from consequences. Contrary to the memes, people would not be able to just murder each other with no penalty, traffic child pornography and slavery with no consequences, or whatever else is associated with Ancap as a meme. There's still private law, private courts, justice, and stability.
Furthermore, monopolies would actually vanish in ancap, because while most people assume capitalists love all corporations, it's much harder for corrupt companies to stay in business without government subsidies, bailouts, and preferential legislation (laws that help certain corporations at the cost of everyone else). Big corporations come from big government, and with no government to lobby to, state-sponsored artificial monopolies would be a thing of a past.
When people think of Ancap, they think of either Mad Max-style anarchy or crazy cyberpunk megacorporation dystopias. The reality of Ancap is that society remains largely the same, minus a lot of the things that are keeping it down like problems caused by central government. If anything, life would be better for a lot more people (including wizards) as granting more freedom has historically had an exceptionally successful track record: The United States was founded on freedom, and it prospered while it's modern decline is the result of more freedom being taken away.
Ancap could be presented in a lot of ways from a moral perspective (taxation is theft) or economical argument (free markets are efficient), all of which it excels at. At its core, ancap just means no more one-way violence from normies and chads. You have the freedom to say no, and if not, the freedom to act in self-defense and fight back against tyranny
Try not to use outsider memes like tfw or t. even without the preceding >.
Try not use terms/phrases like "redpill me on x." The fact that we have a politics thread is bad enough as it is.
I wonder where are all the people who praised Venezuela's socialist government as the "socialism that will work this time" a decade ago. There wasn't any lack of support back in the 00's. Where are all the Hollywood buffoons saying "yep, I guess I was wrong"? Where are all leftist intellectuals? I'll tell you: They're either silent or making excuses.
Venezuela is state capitalist so it doesn't count
A simple three step proposal for better government and/or reasonable work visa regulations.
1. President fires many high ranking civil servants, organization reorganization reorganizes remainder organizationally.
2. Current majority Republicans elected under the President's Protectionist yet Anti-Govt. platforms pass laws guaranteeing that civil service H1Bs are not treated differently from private enterprise H1Bs, thereby either choking off tech sector coastal liberal H1Bs and securing Protectionist platform, or, with sufficient extreme vetting for numerous H1Bs, enabling the next step.
3. President, seeing that he lacks sufficiently qualified expert applicants internally and needs to bring new highly skilled expert staff into his organization, begins filling civil service leadership and high-ranking positions with supremely qualified and talented H1B holders. Expert hatchetmen imported from Japan, the Phillipines, Brexitstan, Chayna, and the Kremlin take up roles that are too dirty, unpleasant and hard for lazy American workers to do, for very competitive wages, in the high offices of civil services everywhere. Brexitstani civil servants are supposed to be good at public healthcare, they can reform the VA and Medicare.
3a. Also H1B in a horde of public school teachers from countries which outperform ours. When complaints begin, tell the teacher's union that teaching is such a hard job that it is tough to find good Americans willing to do it for competitive wages, when students complain tell them that teaching is such a dirty job that it is hard to find good teachers willing to do it, in each case the phrasing should be such that it is their fault and theirs alone. This will not solve any problems, but it will make life worse for public school teachers, which is very important to me, plus the more effective overseas teachers are likely to be insanely strict, which will make school a zero fun experience for everyone, and not just people like me, which, while not helpful, is at least equitable.
Truly it is indicative of the times when I can't determine wether this post is facetious or not.
It will never happen but I do welcome it.
mentioned it will never happen. There are already many far right movements growing rapidly all over Europe and eventually a boiling point will be reached. Whether that is voting them out or an all out war only time will tell
Its gonna happen slower than people think. Most of the migrants are only there to stay until the wars in their countries end then they have to go back.
Birth rates are another thing but thats not for a few centuries, and by then climate change (man made or not) will be wrecking the earth anyway
There is no war in Iran, Morocco, Algeria, or Tunisia, so what war are they fleeing? Sure you could argue that their government are oppressive, or lack any economical opportunity, and whether or not we should let them in.
I'm not sure how much the climate change will have an impact on it, but I'm pretty sure we will see a succession of refugee crisis that will make this one look like kindergarten. The Gulf States are starting, or already started to face dire financial difficulty, to keep up with their ever growing government spending, particularly in regards of welfare. They rely heavily on food import, and are draining their aquifer. Northern Africa has similar problems, not to mention the ongoing conflict in Libya. The only one that could turn out okay, if nothing crazy politically happen to them is Egypt, but they just had a military coup in response to the Arab Spring (so not so sure how stable they are now), they are next to some crazy neighbours, and Saudi Arabia and Islamists have certainly some interest in Egypt.
We may well see in the near future a successive collapse of the Middle East, and Northern Africa, from famine, and revolt, maybe even civil war, and they are just next to the Mediterranean. Their only saving grace is that their population growth has slowed down, so it is buying them some time, before anything bad happen.
Then we have Africa, which is a complete mess, that could only be solved if we stopped sending them humanitarian aids, so that their population shrink to a sustainable level. But that will only encourage them to immigrate to Europe even more, and may cause some plagues that will spread with them to Europe.
I don't know what to explain to show how bad the state of most sub-saharan countries. Brazil look like an exemplar of social cohesion, economic sustainability, and good governance when compared to this ticking time bomb.
There is no point in sending them back, because more are coming in the future. The only way to stop it would be to close the border completely and shoot anybody that try to cross it. And nobody want to be the new Hitler.
>>148733>There is no point in sending them back, because more are coming in the future. The only way to stop it would be to close the border completely and shoot anybody that try to cross it. And nobody want to be the new Hitler.
normalfags must have such hard time suppressing thoughts like this
Europe has been at war with Islam ever since Islam was first created. This isn't the first time that Muslim people are invading Europe and it won't be the last. Either Europeans will convert or they will be forced to drive the Muslims out, which won't be pretty. Muslims can peacefully coexist if they are in low enough numbers, but once they become big enough for the extremists to start popping up, the "good" Muslims will not oppose because it is part of the religion.
Islam is a really pesky religion.
>>148774>what good does it do to cause a riot and attack cops in this day and age? Why throw bricks through a shop's windows, bash someones car, or attack innocent civilians?
Ever heard of agent provocateurs? Yes this is counterproductive obviously, but that's precisely the point. This is common everytime there is a significant demonstration in my country for instance, you hear on tv about damage being done by "protesters" and unionists, policemen getting hurt… even though there's no reason whatsoever for them to commit such acts; it's terrible PR.
>A senior engineer at Google wrote a manifesto against diversity and employees are furious
>The manifesto criticizes company initiatives aimed at increasing gender and racial diversity and argues that Google should instead focus on "ideological diversity," according to a report by Vice's Motherboard, which first reported the news late on Friday. The 10-page treatise also claims that biological difference between men and succubi are responsible for the underrepresentation of succubi in the tech industry.
>"We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism," reads the document, a copy of which was obtained by Gizmodo.http://www.businessinsider.com/google-engineer-anti-diversity-manifesto-causes-uproar-2017-8
And all the SJWs can do is call it "toxic" and demand that the author gets fired, which kind strengthens the argument that he made. Are people slowly but surely waking up?
I'm glad to hear this type of news. Any company that falls for the diversity trap is on the way down. Google, Facebook, all of these titans are shooting themselves in the foot by discriminating against those employees that are competent and add value to their organization (white and asian men) in favor of parasites (minorities and succubi) to make a political statement. It's a sign that they will not exist in the near future.
By the way this is being reported and how the extreme left is reacting you'd assume he had gone Schopenhauer on how succubi are just "big children", but all he did was tell the truth in a reasonable manner. Yet the excreta of humanity is furious because they were interrupted while reciting their diversity mantra.
My interpretation of events is basically this:>Google employee says that leftists don't tolerate different opinions>A wave of hatred from leftists follows to get them removed from google for their opinions
How the hell is a humongous corporation leftist
For once "liberal" would be more appropriate
My interpretation of events is basically this:>White male heterosexual Google employee feels threatened by growing portion of succubi, PoCs and other non-WASP employees who are better at work then him>he writes 10-pages "essay" in order to justify and defend his position by saying he is "biologically" predisposed to occupy his current work position in a company>A wave of critique from his fellow employees follows to get him removed from Google for his divisive opinions
I think you are being facetious. There are biological differences between men and succubi and they do influence their behavior. It's a pretty established fact that things like hormones exist and they vary according to your sex, for example, and there's much more than that.
Calling something pseudoscientific and outdated isn't an argument though. It's a filter, and filters are for low-IQ ideologues.
what do you expect from me, write 100-pages essay full of footnotes of contemporary books and papers which no one would read to disprove this 10-pages shit of a bull?
Yes, although you can make it just a few paragraphs if like most people you are capable of condensing information. Otherwise you would do well to simply stay quiet instead of pretending you know something and then refuse to explain why.
>>148796> argues that Google should instead focus on "ideological diversity,"
…it's a fucking company. It produces products, which it then sells in order to accrue capital, which it invests into its own structure and research in order to produce more and better products.
Why the fuck is "ideological diversity" an even slightly good idea? How the hell would cultivating more Wizlamic Fundamentalists, more Esoteric Hitlerites, more Zerowork Communist firebrands, more antinatalists, and and more Uncle Ted Anarcho-Primitivists help them out?
Or did he mean "within the normal range of ideological diversity, rather than within the wizchan range," so just slightly more republicans relative to democrats? From one of our points of view, that ought to look vanishingly lose to no diversity of opinion at all.
It makes at least as much sense as ethnic or gender diversity as a company policy.
No, because ethnic and gender diversity are very obviously nothing more than cynical marketing ploys intended to help the company profit from the mawkish sentimentality of the common liberal rube who believes that the only inherent problem with capitalism is that there are not enough bourgeois vaginas and bourgeois of color exploiting the working class.
For those wizards who think that feminism has nothing to do with wizards. Just imagine if your parents thought you weren't enough of a boy and decided that you were a succubus instead. This is what happens today. I'm glad my parents are conservative.
maybe some wizards are really succubi whose doctors wrongly identified them as males
>>148887>to wizardly to be male
does that mean chads are also witches by converse
>>148883>I'm glad my parents are conservative.
It was conservatives who think that if their child deviate even slightly from the norm he is no longer a True Man
I wish my parents thought I was a female, they just beat me and yelled at me for being a sensitive shy boy and loaded my room up with posters of half naked succubi and watched me get berated and bullied in sports they force signed me up to play
if this happens it's only because they had conservative parents in the past
The wizchan diaspora will be united once again when our neckbeard brothers realize how they are commodified and exploited by normalfag society. The call will go out, the boats will be seen on the horizon; the wizchan refuge will see an influx of wealth, knowledge, and huddled wizmasses ready to start a new world away from their old one. Amen.
No point in getting angry at this. You know she's stupid, you know she's wrong, and her worthless opinions mean jack shit. There is no industry conspiracy to hire asocial aspies (lol), we're just naturally better at this type of work. Deep down Stacy knows and fears this, and tries to rationalize her fear away to preserve her ego.
The thing is, she's not even talking about the average wizard, but probably average normalfag guys that are slightly abnormal, a little to passionate about their hobby. And she feels so threatened that she would fire a guy just for not fitting her idea of non-"maladjusted" person a.k.a. anyone who doesn't "get laid", "go out on weekends", "party", "date" and probably entertain her on her lunch breaks.
I know I'm late on this, but here's the actual memo as a PDF instead of from a shitty formatted article. Easier to save and personally archive this way for future reference as well, since this document is now pretty much historical at this rate.
Honestly the memo itself is so short, weak, and intentionally as unprovocative as possible that it amazes me how much attention it's getting. The guy's not even on the right, he's essentially a lolbert and what he wrote can be best described as so centrist that it only looks right, relatively speaking. Says a lot about the current state of the world.
also the author of the memo decided to go on Molymeme's show of all places. Molymeme! What a world
such a terribly shit interview, this guys a Harvard educated PhD biologist and can't articulate his thoughts and is a total non-committal pussy ass little bitch, guy shoulda been way more hardcore with his general sentiment of the Orwellian PC loony left culture endemic to Google & popular culture in general
idk, its all just disappointing
She is indeed stupid, and she is also wrong, and she is incredibly obnoxious.
But, and here's the horrible thing, her opinion is worth far, far
more than jack shit.
Opinions and events like this are the sorts of things that cause corporate policies to be rewritten, lest they be subjected to organized lawfare. Corporate policies are the unofficial laws of our society, especially
in industries which do not have strong, united, self-organized workers. Personally I have a good, technical, blue-collar job related to mechanical engineering; if people tried to fuck with me and mine with ridiculous nonsense, the fucking welders and steelworkers might get pissed, and you don't piss off the steelworkers. Because of how various labor policies are structured, in a very real way Chad has my back.
Programmers? Whitecollar salary workers notorious for being unable to organize and effect positive changes in their workplace? Chad doesn't have their back.
Hell, most workers have a hard time believing how exploitative those tech firms can actually be, most people who fall for the STEM meme fixate on relatively high starting pay and don't pay much heed to anything else. And as workers go they're just completely inept at fighting for themselves, there's a joke going around my workplace that some whitecollar tried to organize his fellow software devs, and then started commisserating with a bluecollar unionist. Software guy says "the only thing they were all willing to speak out about passionately was their hatred of open offices." Steelworker replies, "And they still have
If all those normalfag male San Jose programmers want decent treatment, sensible hours and wages roughly equivalent to San Jose city police patrolmen, but at the same time there is a shrieking harridan who hates those normalfags with a fiery passion for being slightly quieter and slightly less interested in partying and sports games than usual and issues screeds about how all slightly quieter technically inclined men must be virgins and all virgins must be gassed at forced labor camps under Aktion T4, who exactly do you think management is going to listen to? The option where worker wages go up, or the option where worker wages stagnate, and at the same time, available vagina supply goes up?
that's the thing though, that's what blew my mind. He's so non-threatening and uncomposed, literally the last person anyone would suspect to write and publish something that's pissing off so many people. I don't know if journalists are even being ironic anymore when they call the damn memo a "hate manifesto" as if it's up there with Mein Kampf. It's crazy, just so crazy
That's the problem. Most people just assume that if they just try to sound as agreeable and rational as possible, the "smart and objective" people that "report facts" and decide what the public opinion will be at places like CNN, WaPo and so on will be as kind to them. I hope it's clear now how much of a mistake that is. It doesn't matter whether you say "there might be some difference between the sexes that influence them to make different career choices that end up influencing their mean wages that don't have anything to do with discrimination" or "succubi are worthless garbage", they'll hear it the same. The greatest mistake a man can make is argue rationally with someone who has abandoned reason.
By the way, when arguing with such a creature, if you still feel like talking instead of going the other way you are forgiven if you use fallacies to make them sound especially retarded and so on. Rational and honest debate is something that should be reserved to those that will hold themselves to the same standards.
In a politics thread during the election, there was a bit of discussion about a lawsuit Yahoo was undergoing, as a female Yahoo executive who drove their company into the fucking ground and helped ruin many things which had been tolerable or positive about their service was accused of unfair hiring and firing practices favoring unqualified succubi over qualified men.
I remember trying to explain how the natural female loathing of unattractive and/or unsociable men with insufficient status advantage is used by companies as a way to increase employee exploitation, as a highly visible knife at the male workforce's throat. That if feminism was not a weapon of capitalism we would not be seeing it taken up by corporations and their policies so readily, that the female "co-worker" who does not work but does extract work from others and has a tendency to cause drama is performing her intended duties as expected, according to any genuinely Marxian analysis where profit is derived from worker exploitation and establishing a system in which the primary workforce is held in the precariat while an enforcement class (police, minor-management, house slaves, office succubi) maintain a climate of fear and/or coercion where more is always extracted from the employees for less, even if that requires granting that enforcement class special privileges and pay without extracting productive labor from them.
For this, one of you called me a Jew, one of you said the whole lawsuit must have been made up, and the libertarianly-inclined simply pretended that worker exploitation is not and cannot be beneficial and corporate feminism therefore can only be explained as a fit of insanity.
Currently, the female office workers, as the enforcement class of Google, are demanding the right to terminate suspicious persons on suspicion of virginity and social inadequacy, in exactly the same manner that police as the enforcement class traditionally demand greater power and greater flexibility in searching, arresting, and terminating individuals suspected of crime. They are, collectively, behaving as an enforcement class, not a production class.
"Hey succubi can't do anything more than target someone and issue various false accusations at him, including accusations of virginity." Yeah, cops don't convict people either, those are juries, nor are the cops the ones who prosecute people, those are lawyers, nor are the cops the ones who rape them in prison, the cops just arrest men and accuse them. Enforcement class, not ruling class and not production class.
Looks like I can't embed a video and an image at the same time.
Yes the guy in the screenshot labeled "Average_Feminist_Liberal" is both an enormous Feminist and a self-identified Liberal, he was a massive Obama supporter and constantly bemoans insufficient advantages for succubi in tech, he is not doing a schtick, he is completely 100% serious. He is also a professional software engineering manager. You want to be a computer wizard, this could easily be your future boss.
The world's in the pooper. It's shitting itself again like a clogged toilet. Idiots everywhere and the smell is terrible. What a shame. Shame on everybody. I wish I was never born to witness this mountain of shit. Where is the plumber? WHERE IS HE?
if only he could walk the walk
At least you make me laugh.
>>149482>avg wiz at a parade
I thought the video was a voice-over with a clip of a succubus for a moment haha
But no really, we need to talk fellow wizards. I'm genuinely clueless on who this fucking Richard Spencer guy is leading marches like this. I thought the "Alt-Right" was just a term coined by the media for anyone with right-leaning opinions? Now there's unironic Nazis after being demonized as Nazis?
Like what, is this Richard Spencer guy supposed to be the next GLR? What's going really on? I heard they ended up calling the National Guard on the march, was there a riot or something?
so many questions
Meanwhile neither group realizes they're both being played as pawns in a divide and conquer scheme by the elites via their socially engineered paradigms.
Oh and apparently people got run over by a car now. What a shit show. Full blown orchestrated race-war in the US seems on the horizon. >>149485>I thought the "Alt-Right" was just a term coined by the media for anyone with right-leaning opinions? Now there's unironic Nazis after being demonized as Nazis?
That's the power of mass social engineering, and this shit is just one little aspect of it.
>leftists are violent
>but somehow it's the right's fault
Now they're mowing white people down with cars but somehow it's their own fault for being hateful bigots. Like back during the election when leftists used to descend with violence on everything Trump but it was supposedly Trump supporters' fault for existing according to the leftist media.
Really? From what I've heard it was the right
who rammed those people in, being a Trump supporter.
There's a storm and surge of misinformation left and right and the country can't make up their mind anymore. Civil War might just happen, it's the only way this kind of thing can resolve itself
>>149516>From what I've heard it was the right who rammed those people in, being a Trump supporter
There's no information on the suspect yet, don't just believe random rumors you read online.
>>149520>if you disagree with people you deserve to die
what did he mean by this
If you're a white guy and you can't bring yourself to be a racist, even with everything that's going on in the world today, you need to go find a closet to hang yourself in. Your mind is too weak for this world.
>>149524>If you're a white guy and you can't bring yourself to man up, find a succubus, marry and breed for the sake of muh aryan race, even with everything that's going on in the world today, you need to go find a closet to hang yourself in. Your mind is too weak for this world.
That's waht pol "wizards" actually believe.
Where the hell did I write anything about breeding in my post? Stop putting words into my mouth.
remind me again why we tolerate these autistic /pol/tards?
it was just some white nationalist
he was triggered over all the lefties protesting against his rally so he mowed them down
do you think the left will respond with their own violence?
>do you think the left will respond with their own violence?
They rarely do. They are more likely just to break things or that one time they hit somebody with a bike lock. The FBI is more scared of right wing terrorism than antifa.
Because culture has largely degenerated in to a nihilistic and confused mess. This is the future of all communication platforms online, just accept the fall.
>>149524>If […] you can't bring yourself to be a racist>you need to […] hang yourself […].
I think it's about time for you to stop being a racist.
The best course of action is to let them duke it out. Wait for them to kill each other, then pick off the remnants. A civil race war would be a wonderful thing.
Hello alt right /pol/ and/or twitter aspie. Get a life.
Chinamen resoundingly vote for Bhttps://archive.is/EMf0q
wtf I love Chinamen now
Every single individual who willingly leaves their home just to feel the social validation of being part of a large group deserves to be mobbed by other people who also left their home just to feel that same social validation.
Very hard to sympathize with anyone in such a story.
They're trying to damage control. Just a while ago they would conjure a cataclysm over any white cop supposedly wrongly shooting some black, even if it was justified. Noticed how it suddenly stopped making every headline once the monster got out of control? They know they started a fire and now they're trying to tone it down. Of course, still always anti-white, but many leftists are at least partly aware that they created this reaction.
This is just going to keep escalating. Ironically the more this escalates the more white nationalists are justified since it basically proves that diversity is a pipe dream.
This too is the result of leftism destroying itself. The left played the race card and tried to race bait so much that it made non-whites hate whites and now whites are feeling disenfranchised.
I think that's a side effect of postmodernist deconstructionism taking to retarded extremes in the real world.
They will not be satisfied until they deconstruct/destroy the entirety of Western civilization and the values and principles that was built upon.
>>149874>They (Marxist-Leninists) also believe in the pipe dream that all races and cultures are equal and that they will all magically cooperate with each other to form a global communist state.
The Germans, Magyars, Czechs, Poles, Moravians, Slovaks, Croats, Ruthenians, Rumanians, Illyrians and Serbs came into conflict with one another, while within each of these nationalities a struggle went on also between the different classes. But soon order came out of this chaos. The combatants divided into two large camps: the Germans, Poles and Magyars took the side of revolution; the remainder, all the Slavs, except for the Poles, the Rumanians and Transylvanian Saxons, took the side of counter-revolution.
The division is in accordance with all the previous history of the nationalities in question. It is the beginning of the decision on the life or death of all these nations, large and small.
All the earlier history of Austria up to the present day is proof of this and 1848 confirmed it. Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary.
All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.
The Magyar cause is not in such a bad way as mercenary black-and-yellow enthusiasm would have us believe. The Magyars are not yet defeated. But if they fall, they will fall gloriously, as the last heroes of the 1848 revolution, and only for a short time. Then for a time the Slav counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples
. And that, too, is a step forward.
–Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," January 13th 1849.
>>149874>the workers (low IQ proles) of the world should maintain and effectively run companies and businesses.
This is not necessary. They could use the profits from their labours to hire someone to manage the factory for them. Perhaps promote a worker to manager, and pay them.
The point of communism is that workers should be paying their managers and bosses, not the other way around.
This is retarded for completely different reasons than you make out.
>>149879>The point of communism is that workers should be paying their managers and bosses, not the other way around.
Where did you get this idea from? Because I've never come across it at all. Communism believes that bosses shouldn't exist in the first place because they're unnecessary and controlling, and that workers are better off running the place themselves instead of letting part of their wages going to the boss and then use their pay to buy back the thing they made for higher prices.
Your explanation sounds closer to incidents when bosses make their workers buy something work-necessary from them.
That right-wing wiz's dribble was more accurate
One of the core elements of modern syndicalist strategy is to build a union that is large enough to strike effectively, purchase the (worthless-without-workers) company, and then hire the old boss as the general manager at a wage negotiated through the union. Communists, I don't know, maybe some of them just wanna shoot the boss and be done with it. Or throw him in a gulag, like in their stupid fucked-up little maymays. I see where they're coming from, but I like my way better.
That's a better explanation.>like in their stupid fucked-up little maymays.
Those memes are a response to the ancap "helicopter rides lamo!!!" memery, and it's not like it's any different to the run-of-the-mill Nazi holocaust memes(except Nazis don't believe it's real, as much as they want it to be).
The anarchists do it "ironically" but irony is a slippery slope in internet communities.
They do want to get rid of the boss no matter what though, a recent meme is "bring back the guillotine". Brings a chuckle out of me, honestly.
I think the problem is these statues are in public places, I assume these statues are of bad people who don't deserve to be glorified like this (I don't know, I don't follow the news) at the same time I think it should be up to the people of the city to decide, and maybe the statues can just be relocated to museums or sold to private owners or something
The statues people protest over are usually of slave owners, war criminals, racists, etc, so it's up to you to decide if they're bad or not. There's the argument that they're part of the community heritage and history, but I wouldn't like having to see someone that owned my race a hundred years ago glorified in my own town either.
I do like the museum idea, but I guess they'll follow it there.
you far-right idiots are delusional.
score one for /leftypol/
>Iceland Eliminates People with Down Syndromehttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/450509/down-syndrome-iceland-cbs-news-disturbing-report
Basically the article is about how Iceland got pretty much all mothers to abort children with Down Syndrome. Regardless of your views on abortion, one thing that I find interesting is that leftist norms would probably take an issue with it being called "eugenics" and neoconservative norms would probably use "eugenics" as a bad word. How hard it is to admit that it is eugenics, but eugenics isn't necessarily bad?
They destroy a civil war memorial ment to show dignity and respect to the Dead.
Literally spitting and stomping on it because they they " were on the wrong side of history".
They call for the destruction of anything related to the the Confederacy including art, history, and cultural artifacts because they over simplify and are ignorant of a great many things related to the Civil War.
They want to ideologically purify history rather than learn from and respect it.
It is part of a overall pattern of behavior that seems to deconstruct/destroy everything to do with Western values, traditions, and Society as a whole.
They want to replace everything with their marxist relativist is bullshit. Historical context be damned.
They would seem that way if it wasn't for the fact that far left people keep calling for the elimination and replacement of the white race. Even left wing political figures bring it up with Glee.
I'm not either left-wing or right-wing but I do have to say that such Behavior does tend to provoke a response. If you say that you want to eliminate white people or replace white people don't be surprised when a few of those white people think that someone is trying to get rid of them or replace them and act like they're crazy for thinking this.
Both sides of this identitarian bulshit needs to stop.
I don't know, I've met plenty of people with Downs let's seem to live happy and fulfilling lives.
That said it is a significant drain and challenge to raise someone with a disability. Not everyone is cut out for it.
I think I lean on the side of Live and Let Live. I rather see programs that help and support people raising disabled children then have them eliminated eugenically.
Will Eastern Europe hasn't bought on to all the diversity bullshit so they may be the last hope for the white race.
Personally I would prefer the route that Japan would like to go down which is Automation and robots to deal with falling birth rate but robots can't be debt slaves or vote for free shit so leftist politicians would never go that direction if they can help it.
>>149980>Just wondering why there isn't a native European state, similar to Israel, that is for the preservation of the European peoples?
because muh holocaust
>Can someone explain why white people need to become a minority in their native homelands of thousands of years?
because muh holocaust
Because globalization and capitalism. Free markets mean Capital should be allowed to freely shop for labor, and Capital wants cheap third worlders. The situation in the west reflects this.
Try and look at Capitalism as it's own thing. Humans are merely its willing hosts, but the thing itself isn't human. Capitalism doesn't care about people's inventions like values or morals or nationalism or religion or traditions, it will fight back if they pose a threat, and it will commercialize them to further replicate itself. It's a self-propagating, energy dissipative process, like a forest fire, or a hurricane.
It's actually pretty simple. Education and training and the introduction of succubi into the workforce as a serious entity increases production per person, and makes them much more efficient workers. This has the side effect of reducing birthrates since childrearing is disrupted. When both male and female are working 60 hours a week to make mr Schecklestein richer, they don't have much time for socialisation and child rearing. And such the birth rate declines.
And so, immigration is touted as the solution. Bring in more workers to prevent the completely unacceptable condition of having more jobs than available workforce. If workforce is in demand, their wages go up, and the political capital goes up. They can start demanding things like rights, powers, and control over their situation, just like after the black death where so many workers died, there's no longer enough to work for the aristocrats, who previously used the knights to oppress them so they could get cheap labour. And so after the black death they started getting rights and threatening the political system! Can't have the peasants getting uppity.
Anyway fast forward today and immigration and the massive birth rates of third world countries ('Developed' with modern agriculture to increase birth rates but not with anything that'd decrease birth rates like birth control or education. They were turned into slave labour farms during the period where white people were still plentiful, extracting resources from their own country and selling them to third world oligarchs for pennies) is a plentiful source of extra disposable people to make sure that there are more people than jobs to force the labour costs down.
It's a pretty purposeful, planned execution of the same kinds of things used for hundreds of years; make sure that the peasants don't have any say.
>>150019>Try and look at Capitalism as it's own thing. Humans are merely its willing hosts, but the thing itself isn't human. Capitalism doesn't care about people's inventions like values or morals or nationalism or religion or traditions, it will fight back if they pose a threat, and it will commercialize them to further replicate itself. It's a self-propagating, energy dissipative process, like a forest fire, or a hurricane.
the same could be said of marxism, communism, socialism, and all the other historically destructive cancers
>>150026>the same could be said of marxism, communism, socialism, and all the other historically destructive cancers
Not really, because all of those are human inventions that tried answering the question "how should we run the society?". They begin with people trying to figure out what's important - is it equality, or tradition, or devotion, or self-sufficiency, or nationhood, and then
a blueprint to that end is generated with varying degrees of success. Capitalism poses no such questions. It's physics manifested. The only real rule is "production must generate a surplus, to be fed back into production". Like life, it only exists to propagate.
Western democracies aren't working towards a particular future the way nationalist, communist or theocratic states would. Policies are formed in response to arising problems, the situation in the west simply reflects the net effect. A nationalist state deciding to detain all jews - that's an ideologically driven policy. Western countries aren't driven by ideologies, and the problems they solve are usually obstacles to capitalism.
Nationalism is one such problem, - capital wants to shop around for labor, capital doesn't care what it sells to whom, capital doesn't want tariffs, capital wants access to overseas resources. Policies are therefore put in place to stifle nationalism. The population will come up with various rationalizations, but don't let it fool you. The reasoning for the policy might borrow from Marxist dialectic, but the reason
Or take religion. It's a human element that if allowed to have real decision-making power, would be interfering with capitalism (don't want any christians shutting down clinics providing a certain valuable service, now would we?). On the other hand, religion creates demand for certain things, so the state will stifle it, but not too much. Consciously moving towards atheism is the kind of ideologically driven impetus that capitalism doesn't give a shit about.
Ditto for morals, traditions, and whatever other sacred cows people have.
That is not to say that the West is completely free of ideology. Human opinions occasionally still influence policy, - now and then you get interference from marxist, nationalist, christian, neoliberal, etc, tendencies. None of them are a real social shaping force though, - none are allowed to sacrifice GDP for some "noble" goal. Capitalism is the dominant force.
Many countries around the world are pretty capitalistic yet do not suffer from mass immigration from third worlders. No, it's not capitalism. What you understand as "capitalism" is merely unavoidable economic reality. But humans are not, have never been and will never be only economic things, so ideology will always shape their societies, and it does as strongly in the Western world as it does elsewhere.
By the way, people should stop using the world "capitalism". It's a shape-shifting boogeyman that means different things for everyone.
>>150045>They begin with people trying to figure out what's important - is it equality, or tradition, or devotion, or self-sufficiency, or nationhood
the correct and only answer is "freedom."
Also please stop twisting definitions around, capitalism is not "physics oriented," nor does have a "real rule" that "production must generate a surplus, to be fed back into production," where the hell do you get these ideas. If you want to talk about rules, capitalism is just private property, private ownership, and private mean of production. That's it. There's no "must generate a surplus, must be fed back into production," because frankly many businessmen don't get that surplus and many businessmen don't always feed it back into production – there's foundations, charities, other things they may care about besides money. It gives them the freedom to precisely direct goods to things they care about that no-one else might.
There's this massive, and I mean massive, misconception that capitalism is apparently a philosophy now hellbent on jewing people and therefore must be destroyed. What nonsense. Let me tell you what capitalism is according to people who really know what it is:
>"Capitalism is not the ideas of the capitalist; it is an economic system.">"Capitalism is not things; it is a mentality.">"Capitalism or modern conditions, modern standards of living, are not simply the outcome of technology. They are the outcomes of certain ideas about social organization and about the cooperation of men under the division of labor and private ownership of the means of production.>t. Ludwig von Mises
Nowhere does it have there about "must" do this or "must" do that. Capitalism is private, meaning you do what you want with your goods, and if you even want to sell ice cream to fight capitalism like what Antifa does, that's your freedom, that's your choice. Capitalism is extremely flexible like that because it doesn't matter what you buy or sell, the natural act of buying of selling in general is what's capitalism about, not your product. That product is your responsibility as the seller, not capitalism's.
Yes, products can be used to propagate more products if you're a good businessmen, and it can be self-sustaining. But it can also be used towards absolutely non-productive efforts like buying useless shit you like. That's actually one point of criticism people like to make with "capitalism," because it's so efficient in making abundance, making surplus, making more and more of everything, that some people can't control themselves and get obese or buy too many useless shit, even self-destructive shit for their own good without priorities. You blame them as individuals for their actions that led them to their own situation, not the "capitalism" that provided prosperity for millions more other people with self-control!
>Western democracies aren't working towards a particular future the way nationalist, communist or theocratic states would.
Good. They should be heading towards freedom, and it's long overdue. Sadly, it's becoming more authoritarian by the day on all sides except those that value freedom.
>>150045>Western countries aren't driven by ideologies, and the problems they solve are usually obstacles to capitalism.>problems democracies "solve"
what fucking problems, democracies have made everything worse!
>"'Capitalism' has made healthcare too unafforable to the people, let us introduce Obamacare">everybody's fucking premium increases and now healthcare is more unaffordable than ever since you get penalized for resisting.>"'Capitalism' has made certain pills too unaffordable to the people, let us 'control' some medication">some pills cost thousands of dollars within the US, yet only a few bucks across the border in lawless Maxico thanks to the private nature of capitalism out of reach by governments>"'Capitalism' has made education too unaffordable to the people, let us blindly give loans out to everybody and their mother regardless of what their studying and its practicality">tuition increases all around the country for everyone as people become debt-slaves to the state, oversaturating good degrees to the point where it becomes useless and harder to get a job, while those that studied useless degrees already are essentially jobless debt-slaves to the state
three quick examples of trying to "fix capitalism" while making things worse. It's as if you can't fix something people already have – the freedom to trade – without making things infinitely worse for everyone towards the road of serfdom. All while democracies polarize everybody to the edges of Civil War, countrymen against countrymen instead of mutually enjoying freedom.
>capital wants to shop around for labor, capital doesn't care what it sells to whom, capital doesn't want tariffs, capital wants access to overseas resources>"capitalism" is one person and he is ebil!
This is just ridiculous. You can choose to hire local labor, you can choose not to deal with certain people you don't like, you can choose not to utilize overseas resources. You know what happens? You find out that local labor is over-regulated to hell and back, and it's damn hard to hire local labor for unskilled task because people somehow feel entitled to more value than their labor is worth
. That makes cheap natural local labor expensive
so of fucking course businessmen will look elsewhere. There'd be more jobs available to more people if the state stops trying to fuck with the market, to say arbitrarily "this is more valuable than it really is therefore it must be more expensive and you pay more for their time". People's work hours get cut despite a higher wage, meaning they work less despite making more money and the net earning is the same. The difference now is that everything is more expensive, and people don't get hired as much since local costs are artificially high.
So the people that felt so entitled to increase the value of their labor made it too expensive to the point where they're not hiring anymore. From making money, thy get greedy, and now they can't make any money at all in joblessness. Thanks for "fixing" what capitalism would of naturally solved: by just making local unskilled labor reflect the value of its worth, cheap, so that teens and the elderly can work part-time to pass time while making the costs of goods lower for everyone. They're not concerned about "a livable wage," let them have sub-wage jobs so the job itself can't be stolen from people who need them!
>Consciously moving towards atheism is the kind of ideologically driven impetus that capitalism doesn't give a shit about.>"capitalism" is one person and he is ebil!
there's no denying that some people use capitalism to fund atheism, but that's on them not "capitalism" as an ideology. You've really got to distinguish things instead of blind after blind generalization. Capitalism is actually what gives you the freedom to hire only-christians, to sell to only christians, while in a business for christians. Oh, but that's discrimination, the state
can't allow that now can't it. Bake my fucking cake!
>None of them are a real social shaping force though, - none are allowed to sacrifice GDP for some "noble" goal.
as it should be. The only "noble" goal is the freedom
. Not for the government to sacrifice GDP, but for private citizens like you and me
to sacrifice what we want to where we want.
The biggest thing to know about capitalism is simply: Capitalism is NOT necessarily authoritarian. It's so flexible, that authoritarian entities can use capitalism, but capitalism is NOT authoritarianism. They're separate like apples and oranges, and the problem is that some people hate the bad taste of shitty fruit salad so much, that they don't even look at the individual fruits, they just say "whatever's in there must be all equally evil, immoral, and destructive as all the other fruits!"
Do not miss out on good food because of shitty abusive chefs not using the fucking ingredients properly.
bonus quotes from Mises while we're here:
>"The real bosses, in the capitalist system of market economy, are the consumers. They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result in either profit or loss for the enterpriser. They make poor men rich and rich men poor. They are no easy bosses.">"The advantages of capitalism are not for the benefit and advantage of the capitalists, but for the benefit of the masses. Capitalism is primarily production, large-scale production, for the masses. The customer, who is always right, benefits from capitalism. The institution of capitalism is not a reward for good children; it is an institution for the benefit of nations and of the people. If an individual capitalist is bad, you should not punish him by abolishing capitalism. Therefore, all the writers and authors of the fictional stories, literature, and plays that give us pictures of very bad capitalists, and say capitalism should be abolished, miss the point."
>>150059>people should stop using the world "capitalism". It's a shape-shifting boogeyman that means different things for everyone.
As much as I want to agree with you since now it's gotten to the point where "anything I don't like must be capitalism," there has always remained one consistent definition of Capitalism: Private property, private ownership, and private mean of production.
How does anything get anything done privately? Well you're going to need freedom, because otherwise it wouldn't be private!
Whats with faggots obsessing with vietnam lately
have you been asleep since 2012
BIG BLACK Times are upon us :(
I like statues of people who didn't lose
I don't care about whites crying and I really hate the United States in general
Well your race sucks whatever it is and your country sucks wherever it is.
My country is the United States so you are correct.
If you don't like it then you're free to leave, move somewhere else.
The US is a global superpower that has had an influence over every inch of the world for over a century by now, and it still exercises that influence.
Also I'm a moneyless manchild.
It's weird watching you trying to argue against an obvious Accelerationist as if he were a Democrat. The mental landscape of the Cult of the Emergent God is pretty different from the conventional left, and it's kinda hard to see how you could confuse the enthusiasm for the dissolution of all states, achievable through capitalism, with centrist statism, which the Accelerationist described as a limit and problem that capitalism will solve.>>150045>>150019
Do you lean more towards Srnicek and Williams? Or more to Nick Land? You sound pretty Landian, but you didn't take the time to describe Capitalism with the ecstatic approval of most Landians.
Wait, that's different from the right how?
Civil war when