No.5974[Last 50 Posts]
>arguing with /leftypol/lack
>he calls Hitler and Nazi Germany capitalist
>he attributes Japanese and British imperialism to capitalism
>he attributes the Rwandan genocide and smoking deaths to capitalism
>calls libertarianism authoritarian simply because it has clear rules about how ownership of property works
>posts a bunch of images and infographics with no sources and sometimes just plain appeal to authority and baseless attacks
>ad hominem and calls me a capitalist pig
I love a good debate, but I'm beginning to think commies are mentally impaired. Even Fascists and Nazis can give much better arguments than them and are a lot more cordial to boot.
So I ask you, /liberty/, have you ever had a far-lefty actually give a good argument before?
If not, tell stories of retarded arguments from commies you've heard.
No.5975
>>5974
I have never had an out an out argument with someone who calls themselves a commie who has had anything near what you would call a reasonable argument. Its all talking points and emotional appeals.
The real tricky ones are the people who philosophically identify as moral relativists because you need to get deep down into objectivity vs subjectivity and determinism vs free will. They will take you around the bend by honing in on the ambiguities in language in order to remove any meaning that could support your claim.
>You cant define murder as someone killing another. some people would say that killing an animal is murder or killing so to imply that the nap works is to imply that you can not kill anything. If you cant kill anything you can't survive as even plants need to die so that you can live.
Those people are really hard to debate because they are intentionally trying to avoid any objective facts or definitions that don't support their belief in subjectivity. It seems to be about defining away any measurable amount of personal responsibility someone can have for their actions. They don't want to think they are responsible for the way they act so they cling to moral relativism to justify their actions.
Its particularly worse than commies because most commies are just idealistic useful idiots who latch on to the first socially accepted radical political ideology they understand. They tend to not have any facts and mostly espouse their views to people they know have no interest in politics or know less than they do about it. But moral relativists have searched out philosophy to support their beliefs out of need for justification. They tend to be intelligent lost people who are so confused about what right and wrong are that they just go for broke and say nothing is right or wrong then go to great lengths to prove it. Of course in our day and age there is no shortage of intelligent people trying to justify the existence of the state so there is an endless procession of moral relativist philosophers and university professors to help out their theories along the way.
Moral Relativist: I don't believe in objectivity!
Ancap: Is that an objective fact?
No.5981
>>5974
>So I ask you, /liberty/, have you ever had a far-lefty actually give a good argument before?
Only from mutualists and only on renting being a form of usury.
No.5984
>>5974
>>he calls Hitler and Nazi Germany capitalist
>Keynesian economics
>government production controls of consumer goods
>capitalist
That's about what i would expect
>>5975
>most commies are just idealistic useful idiots
yep
No.5988
When we say Anarcho-Capitalism is authoritarian, it is because there will be private police. Private police will be owned by a minority of people who can afford it. That same minority will own a big chunk of schools, hospitals, etc. That same minority will enforce their rules with their privately owned police. That same minority will have become the state.
>>5984
That's still Capitalist, just because it doesn't fit your special snowflake definition of what Capitalism is doesn't mean it's not.
No.5989
>>5974
There may have been one or two on /liberty/, but even these people were complete shite. Fuck commies.
>>5975
Interesting post, m8. Yeah, fuck moral relativists. You can see the lighter shades of them everywhere, but I have yet to see the really bad cases.
No.5990
>>5988
>The minority will rule us all!
What makes you so sure about that?
>That's still Capitalist, just because it doesn't fit your special snowflake definition of what Capitalism is doesn't mean it's not.
Define capitalism.
No.5992
>>5990
The day after the state has been destroyed, to whom do all things belong? The same elite ruling us will just buy what's left of the government and the status quo will be enforced, unless there is a massive redistribution of wealth and properties during that revolution, but I'm not sure that's what you've got planned.
>Define capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and the accumulation and expansion of capitals based on the extraction of surplus-value.
No.5995
>>5992
T>he day after the state has been destroyed, to whom do all things belong? The same elite ruling us will just buy what's left of the government and the status quo will be enforced, unless there is a massive redistribution of wealth and properties during that revolution, but I'm not sure that's what you've got planned.
Actually, it is. The Koch Brothers can go shove the pipelines they built on the property of poor farmers up their asses.
If we're lucky, we won't get to that revolution, and will instead watch the world slowly become more libertarian, starving the parasites
>>5992
>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and the accumulation and expansion of capitals based on the extraction of surplus-value.
>means of production
Whatever these are. It seems to be a pretty clear-cut case when you look at factory machines and compare them to bread, but as soon as you look at a 3D printer someone has in his home, any differentiation between the means of production and the product of labor becomes impossible.
>surplus value
This is dependent on the concept of objective value of labor. The problem is that this value is usually assigned completely arbitrary when it's not given as the product of labor. In the latter case, the concept of objective labor value still does not allow you to establish whether a voluntary exchange of two goods is beneficial. When workers cooperate, it also becomes impossible to say whom the product of their labor belongs to. You could say that they share it, but in this case what if one worker did much more important and hard work than the other?
No.5996
>>5995
>watch the world slowly become more libertarian
So you believe the current State will disappear on it's own? I thought Libertarians believed the exact opposite.
No.5997
>>5988
>When we say Anarcho-Capitalism is authoritarian, it is because there will be private police. Private police will be owned by a minority of people who can afford it. That same minority will own a big chunk of schools, hospitals, etc. That same minority will enforce their rules with their privately owned police.
If you enforce rules by means of social and economic pressures (i.e. a conflict resolution organization threatens to cut off your water and tells grocery stores not to serve you) that's not coercion.
We are advocating the end of theft perpetrated by politicians and bureaucrats. If society ends the use of coercion, a moral crime, what happens afterwards isn't really that important. Slavery is a moral crime, even if ending it causes severely adverse affects, it's a moral crime which must be ended. Similarly, initiating force against others to expropriate their justly acquired property is a moral crime, even if ending this practice leads to worse outcomes (which it probably won't) we're still for it. That's because we're not going to let concerns about avoidable outcomes prevent us from ending moral crimes.
No.5998
>>5997
To clarify
>If you enforce rules by means of social and economic pressures (i.e. a conflict resolution organization threatens to cut off your water and tells grocery stores not to serve you) that's not coercion.
And if it's not coercion it's not authoritarian. Call you what it what you will, it's not tyranny, it's not dictatorial, it's not authoritarian, and it's not government as it exists today.
No.5999
>>5996
>So you believe the current State will disappear on it's own?
Never said it will, but it might. If people just silently stop supporting the state, it will eventually crumble. In a society of libertarians, who would vote for a bunch of politicians who wanted to introduce a new bill to implement "free" health care? Whether by revolution, subversion or abandonment, our best bet of killing the state is by getting the majority to stop believing in its legitimacy.
>I thought Libertarians believed the exact opposite.
Then you should think again.
No.6000
>>5999
This is highly utopian.
/leftypol/ GET, btw
No.6001
No.6002
>>6000
>>5999
Now, to be serious, do you really think there will be a shift of mentalities that will lead to a society where the state will be non-existent?
>>5997
>If you enforce rules by means of social and economic pressures that's not coercion.
Literally what? You're threatening to kill me, how is that not coercion?
>>5995
>3D printer
What are 3D printers, .0001% of our economy?
No.6003
>>6002
>Literally what? You're threatening to kill me, how is that not coercion?
That's not social or economic pressure *facepalm*
Social pressure is threats of social disapproval or ostracism.
Economic pressure is threats to refuse to do business with you, or charge you higher prices, whatever.
Violence/physical aggression is coercion/force.
No.6004
>>6002
>Now, to be serious, do you really think there will be a shift of mentalities that will lead to a society where the state will be non-existent?
It might happen, just as this shift towards the victim mentality happened in the last fifty or so years. Why shouldn't this process be reversible?
>Literally what? You're threatening to kill me, how is that not coercion?
If I threaten to kill you because you enter my house armed with a kitchen knife, cable ties and an anatomy book, do you still regard this as illegitimate? Coercion itself is not the problem, initiating it is.
No.6005
>>6002
>What are 3D printers, .0001% of our economy?
The point is you can't objectively differentiate between private property and the means of production. Is a knife a means of production? What if it's used to slaughter animals? To cut up an evil capitalist's steak? To carve a wooden statue that is kept by the owner until he dies, his son inherits it, and the statue is sold?
A table, is that a means of production? What if you make sandwiches on top of it? What if you then sell those sandwiches?
Is a printer not a means of production until it prints something for commercial use?
Is land a means of production if it's not being used for farming?
"A capital good is a durable good (one that does not quickly wear out) that is used in the production of goods or services."
Yeah, so things are just switching back and forth between capital good and private property based on their usage…
No.6006
>>6000
The current empire will collapse of its own accord from rampant mismanagement, poor education and increasing removal of responsibility. When this happens there will be extreme balkanization and formation new countries. Some of these countries will have freer laws than others and those countries will prosper from the trade allowed within them. Hopefully a nation will be established with little to know laws and this nation will become dominant. If we are lucky we wont have another empire and the concept of voluntary interaction will become so wide spread that we will slowly over the generations become more and more peaceful to the point in which thinking the state could be a viable option for moral management would be such a ridiculous idea that it would sink into history like monarchy and serfdom.
No.6007
>>6003
If you cut my water and makes me unable to buy food, you're effectively killing me.
>>6004
>It might happen
So, basically, you want just to sit down and wait until all people (including those who make a living because there is a state, such as the police) agree that there is need for a state? A stateless society is impossible without violently overthrowing the state first.
>>6005
>you can't objectively differentiate between private property and the means of production
>cases about what if you make sandwiches with your 3D printer and then sell the knives
Fortunately enough, in our world individual production is slowly dying as industrial (i.e. collective) production has become the norm. So, yeah, there are bleeding edge cases, but they are far from being the norm and can safely be ignored.
>>6006
That hasn't been the tendency in history, in fact, States tend to become bigger and bigger.
No.6008
>>6007
>That hasn't been the tendency in history, in fact, States tend to become bigger and bigger.
That's mainly due to increases in trade enabling more reproduction and allowing the state to acquire more resources from the populous and spreading its influence. Trade is what enabled the states to grow so large. Actually it is a tendency in history. The collapse of every major empire has resulted in the creation of more and smaller states…like say for example the Balkan peninsula after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
No.6009
>>6008
What about Super-States being created, such as the European Union?
No.6010
>>6007
>If you cut my water and makes me unable to buy food, you're effectively killing me.
You can not force people to associate with other people economically or socially just because you don't like the results of the non-association. Also, if we cut off your water, you can go to a different town, that's the whole point, we want you to leave or to comply with social mores.
No.6011
>>6010
>you can go to a different town
If I get the money and I can pass through the privately owned roads, yeah, I guess I could.
No.6012
>>6009
They are similar to the ottoman empire in the sense that they wont last forever. The EU is just a way of stealing from many nations under the guise of economic prosperity. What you are seeing now in the EU is a perfect example of what happens when you remove economic responsibility from individual governing bodies. Every one tries to live of of everyone else s dime and when the money starts to run dry threats become the norm like what Greece is doing at the moment.
You will see the EU disband within your life time perhaps sooner than you think.
No.6014
>>6011
Let's assume there's an evil dispute resolution organization (DRO) that refuses to let you leave for no good reason (in which case, logically, the enforcers of the DRO would abandon it) wants to prevent you from leaving.
Well actually people don't homestead the ground that's too deep beneath them to affect the structural integrity of what they own and they also don't own the air too high above them to affect them so if you wanted to you could pole vault or dig from sympathetic house to sympathetic house until you got out of the town. But realistically speaking people are not going to try to imprison you for inconsequential shit, if they did, they'd lose their enforcers (like the owners of the private roads, the grocery stores, the utilities)
No.6015
>>6014
OH, and then you're going to say "What if the evil DRO owns everything so if they become douchebags they can enforce their shitty decisions?"
SOLUTION: Don't fucking live in an area where a DRO can, without coercion, ruin your life without any external support.
No.6016
>>6012
>They are similar to the ottoman empire in the sense that they wont last forever
Fortunately enough, nothing lasts forever. My point wasn't that we would end up with a unique, global super-state, but that States that get destroyed tend to be replaced by others.
>>6014
>if you wanted you could dig a tunnel with machines that cost millions of dollars or fly away with machines that cost millions of dollars
>>6015
But what if it's too late? What if all developed areas are controlled by one or another DRO?
No.6018
>>6016
>But what if it's too late? What if all developed areas are controlled by one or another DRO?
So give live in North Dakota. You act as if the axis of evil is going to arise over night, no one will recognize it, and it'll become to difficult to leave to somewhere not shit.
No.6019
>>6011
Its not like people would just cut off your supplies to be dicks. Social ostracism and denial of service would only come as a result of your own actions. You will have been the one to incur the economic and social consequences of your negative behavior. In a free market every body is responsible for their actions unlike in our current system where you can have a badge and a gun and kill who you want without major consequences. Or be popular enough to be able to have say over what mass murder is going to happen next then when the killing is over you get rewarded with money and speaking engagements.
No.6020
>>6017
>So why don't you go and live in an area where there's no state?
There is not such a place. Also, that DRO isn't committing any moral crimes in terms of the NAP (if it is you can defend yourself with force). Whereas all governments today commit the moral crime of aggression.
In Ancapistan you can leave from one NAP abiding DRO district to another, whereas my only option is to go from one NAP violating nation to another; and even that is loaded with bureaucracy.
No.6022
>>6018
>You act as if the axis of evil is going to arise over night
I think the exact opposite, though, that they will slowly appear.
>it'll become to difficult to leave to somewhere not shit
It usually is when you're poor, especially in a world with no minimal wage or publicly funded transports
>>6019
They could want cheap labor force to stay in a ghetto.
No.6023
>>6021
Somalia is not a society free from violations of the NAP, it's a result of a failed state, not a concerted effort by philosophically minded people to work towards a stateless society.
No.6024
>>6016
>States that get destroyed tend to be replaced by others.
Yes this is true and through history we have had states with more and more freedom. Hopefully this time around we can get a state with the most freedom although with people still hitting their kids it will take a while to get to ancapistan.
No.6025
>>6022
>it usually is when you're poor, especially in a world with no minimal wage or publicly funded transports
1. Some DROs would likely fund public transport, there would be a lot of experimentation with 300 million people living in a decentralized society
>I think the exact opposite, though, that they will slowly appear.
2. If people see a DRO attempting to form into a new state they will refuse to accept its decisions or enforce them or allow it to grow any bigger. Just like people would stop selling land to a huge aggressive land owner at anything less than exorbitant prices.
No.6026
>>6025
>Some DROs would likely fund public transport
Why, if they make no profit from it?
>Just like people would stop selling land to a huge aggressive land owner at anything less than exorbitant prices.
What if that land owner is so competitive the other land owners have no choice but to sell him the lands and go to find another job elsewhere?
No.6027
>>6024
>we have had states with more and more freedom
Actually, I doubt the USA are a freer country now than two hundred years ago, forget about shifting toward a freer state.
The same applies to Western Europe.
No.6028
>>6022
>They could want cheap labor force to stay in a ghetto.
Who would/could do this? Are you implying that a the state doesn't already primarily do this? Why would people pay a DRO to enslave them? How would the DRO get paid? Whats to stop some other DRO from coming by and snatching up the slaver DRO's customers? If its violence than you aren't talking about a DRO you are talking about a state.
No.6029
No.6030
>>6028
>Are you implying that a the state doesn't already primarily do this?
Not at all, in fact, the State enforces that.
>Why would people pay a DRO to enslave them?
Hint: it's not the people living in the ghetto who pay the DRO for that
>If its violence than you aren't talking about a DRO you are talking about a state.
Well, that DRO would have a private police to watch the correct use of it's private property. You can't enforce the NAP without violence.
No.6031
>>6026
>Why, if they make no profit from it?
1. People do things to be nice. Surprise! It's called charity
2. If a DRO handles let's say 1/3rd of a large city they have incentives to get people to come to their part of it. Public services might be a net gain if it encourages new people to come in
>What if that land owner is so competitive the other land owners have no choice but to sell him the lands and go to find another job elsewhere?
So what? Not the end of the world.
No.6032
>>6030
>You can't enforce the NAP without violence.
The NAP is not the non-violence principle. It's the non-aggression principle. Aggression is the initiation of fraud or violence.
No.6034
>>6026
>Why, if they make no profit from it?
They would make profit from it. Transporting their constituents to and from work would ensure they get paid.
>What if that land owner is so competitive the other land owners have no choice but to sell him the lands and go to find another job elsewhere?
How would this happen? The land owner is an aggressor how would they be competitive? Do you mean the land owner would be very rich? If so how did they get rich if not through voluntary interaction?
No.6035
>>6030
>You can't enforce the NAP without violence.
…
Whats to stop some other DRO from coming by and snatching up the slaver DRO's customers?
No.6037
>>6036
How? Slaves are a lot less efficient than even men given the semblance of freedom and rights. And each useless eater in the slave management structure requires additional slaves to support.
In the late Roman empire slaves became so monetarily valuable because no new slaves were coming into the empire that they actually had rights and got paid more than we do.
Then Diocletian made pretty much everyone slaves and Constantine let inflation make them poor serfs.
Anyway my point is slavery is so inefficient that it eats up all of your excess resources and actually historically dissolves your society.
If I heard two towns over they were keeping a bunch of people in a walled ghetto and using them for slave labor I would fly a drone over once a month to drop a 3d printed gun and a few rounds. Or even offer the slave class the guns to defend themselves if they trim my weed crops for a year or two.
It's in my best interest not to let slavery take foot.
No.6038
>>6036
So are you implying that the people under the slaver dro are paying for the privileged of being slaves? How would the slaver dro keep anyone? They cant use violence remember. And they are making much less money than any other dro because the other dro allow their customers to engage in profit seeking allowing them to build their individual wealth and eventually invest in capital goods to increase their efficiency. Are you saying that slave labor is more efficient than free trade and economic freedom? You would also be implying that the central planing of the economy would work.
No.6050
>>5974
I've not, no. Every single fucking time, it ends in appeals to emotion, ad hominem, or just simply shouting victory every two seconds until they can claim they've won because you left on account of the guy being an annoying prick.
Then again, I've only argued about gun control. Still, often the same blokes.
No.6051
>>5975
Murder: Unprovoked killing of another human. Unprovoked, in this context, meaning along the lines of they never initiated violence.
Until we find aliums this works fine.
No.6052
>>6007
>If you cut my water and makes me unable to buy food, you're effectively killing me
Really? I would've thought that it just means that McGreedyson down the road who's been eyeing up the water/food market for a while has a good base to start off with?
Or does competition somehow not exist in your example?
No.6053
>>6030
Good thing you don't need to not use violence, dipshit.
NAP is a NON AGGRESSION PACT.
Please learn to read.
No.6056
No.6057
>>6056
That's a great example of an annoying non argument thanks for contributing.
No.6069
>>5988
>When we say Anarcho-Capitalism is authoritarian, it is because there will be private police
[citation needed]
>That's still Capitalist
No. It is mercantilism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
No.6070
>>6007
>If you cut my water and makes me unable to buy food, you're effectively killing me.
Collectives are capable of doing this as well
No.6129
"N-no, you see, with my perfect philosopher king, the government will do only good and no wrong…" is always a good one.
>posts a bunch of images and infographics with no sources
This is fun too. Anything along the lines of "Just read this link, it explains it better than I could" is a big trigger warning alarm bell that the person doesn't really understand the ideas they're espousing. There will always be someone who can explain it better than you - on both sides. If that's the approach you want to take then you'll be glad to know that lots of smart people have argued about this stuff long before today. We should just default to the outcome of their debate, right? But, wait - different sides have won at different times. How do we know which one is really right? Maybe we should look at their arguments and - oh, wait, to do that we'd have to actually discuss it ourselves, never mind.
No! "Just read this" is never, ever useful. If you can't argue your side now, today, in your own words, then don't bother starting a discussion at all.
>I'm a liberal, I support wealth redistribution and a welfare state and all that, but I can't stand these SJWs, they're corrupting the idea of liberalism…
These people honestly irk me more than hardcore SJWs. This view is based not on logical consistency, but on convenience. Either the person espousing it doesn't like that left-wing ideas are now turned against him, and preferred them when he could rage against the evil business owners rather than having to apologize for being white. Or, he intuits on some level that left-wing ideas are costly and destructive, but instead of openly admitting that he thinks we can afford the leftisms he likes but can't currently afford the newer SJW ones, he pretends that the former are morally correct and the latter are not. There is no reason that left-wing ideals do not apply to race and gender just as much as they apply to muh class. The exact same logic works in both cases. It's just that SJWs are willing to take their ideas to their logical conclusion, while "I'm just an old-school socialist" types dishonestly apply their reasoning only up to the point where it has consequences they don't like, then suddenly pretend that it no longer applies.
No.6130
>>6129
great post
See this is how you post. We need more quality posters
No.6131
>>5988
>Private police will be owned by a minority of people who can afford it.
You confuse ownership with use. Today, grocery stores are owned by a minority of people who can afford it. Are they the only ones who can eat? Do you need to own a grocery store to be able to get food? Of course not. In fact the poor are far better served by grocery stores than they are by government services like police or schools. There's no reason not to expect the same to be true for policing: that the poor would be far better served if they were able to buy budget policing on the market than now, when they have to wait and hope that the government will see fit to police their neighborhood effectively.
No.6182
>>6129
>No! "Just read this" is never, ever useful. If you can't argue your side now, today, in your own words, then don't bother starting a discussion at all.
This, and everything above it.
>These people honestly irk me more than hardcore SJWs.
That I don't agree with, for the following reason:
>This view is based not on logical consistency, but on convenience.
This is precisely what the SJW's are doing, too. They praise victimhood, but only because they themselves feel like victims. It's a self-serving morality, akin to a child destroying a toy because it belongs to another child. If SJW's were logically consistent, they wouldn't turn on gay people as soon as that became convenient.
No.6211
>>5974
>>he calls Hitler and Nazi Germany capitalist
>>he attributes Japanese and British imperialism to capitalism
Here's the marxian definition of capitalism:
A "mode of production" (in German: Produktionsweise) means simply "the distinctive way of producing," which could be defined in terms of how it is socially organized and what kinds of technologies and tools are used. Under the capitalist mode of production
both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
the owners of the means of production (capitalists) are the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive their income from the surplus product produced by the workers and appropriated freely by the capitalists.
A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class (proletariat) do not own capital and must live by selling their labour power in exchange for a wage.
The capitalist mode of production may exist within societies with differing political systems (e.g. liberal democracy, Social democracy, fascism, Communist state, Czarism), and alongside different social structures such as tribalism, the caste system, an agrarian-based peasant society, urban industrial society and post-industrialism. Although capitalism has existed in the form of merchant activity, banking, renting land, and small-scale manufactures in previous stages of history, it was usually a relatively minor activity and secondary to the dominant forms of social organization and production with the prevailing property system keeping commerce within clear limits.[3]
No.6221
>>6211
I think it deserves a mention that that's just one of the many definitions of capitalism there is. Most ancaps are simply talking about a free market when they talk about capitalism, but marxists frequently confuse this and think ancaps are defending the status quo. In their defense, ancaps sometimes do the same thing. I think we'd be better off if we stopped using the word capitalism altogether, really.
No.6222
>>5974
>he calls Hitler and Nazi Germany capitalist
Was Nazi Germany a communist state? I know what nazi stands for, but it could be Hitler threw socialist in there in order to trick people.
No.6223
Nazi Germany was still in the main capitalist, as was the British Empire. I don't know enough to comment on Japan, but IIRC, it was capitalist after the Meijii restoration for some time. That is unless you're defining capitalist to mean ancapistan and in which case it loses all practical meaning; as does Anarchism, Socialism, Communism, etc when your dialectical syntax is fundamentally theoretical.
No.6233
>>6211
>>6222
The nazis as far as i know used syndicalism
No.6284
>>6221
Personally, I defend the status quo to a certain extent, making efforts to determine the extent of the effect of governments VS the extent of the effect of free markets, because I don't think it's useful to proclaim that everything today is 100% wrong, but with my perfect special free market, it would… . One of the great things about libertarianism is that to a large extent, it does work incrementally. A little extra capitalism in one area or another will generally bring about a little improvement. Compare this with left-anarchists, who oppose the government yet also oppose any law which would reduce the scope of the government (other than relaxing drug laws and possibly state surveillance) because DAS CAPITALISM.
There's no need to praise the status quo too much, but to pretend that it is equally as bad as a socialist dystopia, that you can't point to the capitalist aspects of it and explain why they are beneficial, is lazy and makes your defense of libertarianism much weaker.
No.6289
>>6233
As long as we are talking about mode of production, all the societies in the OP are capitalist.
No.6293
>>6289
>all the societies in the OP are capitalist
Where's your proof
>As long as we are talking about mode of production
There's more to economic systems than that.
No.6296
>>6289
>As long as we are talking about mode of production
Too bad lefists constantly confuse the capitalist mode of production with the free market.
No.6306
>>6293
>There's more to economic systems than that.
You're right. The USSR was state capitalist (admitted by Lenin himself)
Nazi Germany was capitalistic too, since they didn't change the mode of production at all, rather privatizing state institutions.
>>6296
The free market is not inherent to capitalism or socialism. It can exist under both though it is harder for it to be on the former.
People who say true capitalism as in free market are dumb too.
No.6307
>>6306
I mainly use capitalism instead of free market because it pisses off godless heathen morally reprehensible fucks like ancoms.
No.6308
>>6307
You're free to use wrong terminology like a retard if you feel like it. :^)
No.6310
>>6308
>wrong terminology
>implying words can never take on a new meaning once every 100 years
Fucking retard.
No.6312
>>6310
>I redefine words when I feel like it, like a postmodernist faggot
By all means keep making right libertarians look like dumbfucks.
No.6313
>>6293
>Where's your proof
Look at the definition I posted. It does fit Japan, Nazi Germany and almost all western societies since the 18th century.
>There's more to economic systems than that.
But the mode of production is the most relevant (and central) part.
No.6317
>>6310
Man that's a weak argument. Why you got to acknowledge semantics they will just be used against you.
No.6318
>>6313
Have you heard of the term 'mercantilism'? You should.
No.6325
>>6312
Except I didn't redefine it, that was done before. Like it or not, when a word is consistently used wrong for fifty years, this wrong use becomes a correct use.
No.6360
>>6325
I don't remember capitalism becoming synonimous for free market when they are different things to begin with. Maybe in your uneducated shithole.
No.6365
>>6360
>I don't remember capitalism becoming synonimous for free market when they are different things to begin with.
You are retarded, aren't you? This is a ridiculously obvious petitio principii.
No.6368
No.6370
>>6365
Hey you can bring out fallacy names like a faggot attempting to be intellectual, but no, you can call it free market like a fucking retard instead of capitalism, but that won't change it's meaning just cause you're too dumb to understand the terms you use.
>inb4 m-muh ad hominem as a substitute for namecalling.
No.6378
>>6370
Oh boy. There are much shorter ways to answer "yes".
Anyway, your mother is a whore, and you're a pretentious fuck who's clinging to the idea that words can never take on a new meaning, apparently.
No.6399
>>5974
Here's the thing.
Capital has proven, repeatedly, to not give a shit about ideology.
It doesn't care what you value. It doesn't care what you think is wrong.
No.6406
>>6378
>Anyway, your mother is a whore, and you're a pretentious fuck who's clinging to the idea that words can never take on a new meaning, apparently.
Great projections man. You're the retard thinking you can redefine words at will because a bunch of "libertarian" retards like yourself use them incorrectly when their meaning is already established.
But hey, you do it just to make le ancoms mad right? Why would I expect something else from such a faggot?
No.6408
>>6406
>waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah you hijacked my word i'm going to discredit you
>don't you think this reflects badly on your professed ideals YOU THEIF!!!!!
No.6411
Hey /leftypol/ if you want to stab each other's back like what you always do, do it on your own turf.
OP is fascist because he doesn't know that private property means exclusive rights, a.k.a. exclusion. It is natural that one tends to favor domestic exclusiveness, like what people do all the time since nation-state was conceived, so all capitalism necessarily ends into fascism. There has never been a free market utopia without state legitimization and intervention (aka POLICE), except that one time in 18th century France which ended up with people cutting each others' throats with shitty business tactics. Maybe if you stop being a juvenile libertarian (and while at it, stop watching shitty animu like TTGL) and look at history first, instead of deducing things from fairytale axioms, and playing with sandcastle bullshit logic.
No, I'm not trying to discuss anything. I'm just shitposting ;^)
No.6421
>>6411
Well at least you're honest about it.
No.6422
>>6411
>people cutting each others' throats with shitty business tactics
What alternative could you possibly have that wouldn't include people literally cutting each others throats? You commies call libertarians utopians while not acknowledging that you think the world can function without profit incentives. When you have a large state who has the moral authority it will use its authority to actually cut peoples throats. It will try to use violence to control its subjects, their habits and preferences while maintaining that most of the wealth is concentrated into the hands of those who control the government. This has happened since the beginning of time and will continue until the ability to use force to concentrate wealth is observed to be morally wrong.
We acknowledge that human desire is insatiable and people are lazy. These two things being the case, a state allows people to do both to the detriment of the rest of the population.
All that libertarians or anarcho capitalists want is for people to except some god damned personal responsibility! We want a world where everyone is held accountable for their actions and can't use religious beliefs in authority to shield them selves from responsibility.
If you order to their deaths millions of men or kid nap people or regularly extort people for money or deceive people into giving away their responsibility I want you to be fucking held accountable for your actions! As long as a state exists people who want to commit things only a government is capable of will exist. The emperors, kings, high priests, politicians, generals, psycho soldiers and killer cops. the kind of people who commit great acts of evil will no longer exist because there will be no place fro them in society.
In this world with the kind of unrelenting cruelty we see on a near permanent basis I wish the worst thing we had was cutthroat business practices!
No.6426
>>6422
>What alternative could you possibly have that wouldn't include people literally cutting each others throats?
Before capitalism develops? None.
That there wasn't an alternative doesn't change the point he was making, though.
Your critique on states is probably more appropriate when someone is actually advocating on, by the way.
No.6427
>>6426
If what you are typing in no way helps the case of the person you are criticizing then it is akin to insulting them. The person I criticized even mentioned in his post that he was shitposting. They were making no points and in no way helped communicate his ideas about reality.
If you have taken a look at any of the posters previous posts you would realize that what they advocate is communism. If you are all for the arguably worst form of statism I would suggest you fuck off back to /leftypol/. If not stop defending the indefensible.
The poster made no good arguments and only posted to stifle discussion and foster discord. Why yo got to help the commies bro?
No.6431
>>6427
Communism is the only permanent way out of the state.
No.6434
>>6431
It was only achieved for a short time but it did happen in Paris Commune. It was definitely out of state, or at the very least, at odds with the nation-states at that time. They were unnaturally crushed (by the state). Unlike lazy-fair market society, which only happened because they appealed to the King, and the King allowed it.
>>6422
>This has happened since the beginning of time and will continue until the ability to use force to concentrate wealth is observed to be morally wrong.
>observed
>morally wrong
Stopped reading there. Alright, I ain't gonna waste your time anymore.
No.6435
>>6434
Because time is money, and wasting money isn't good, man.
No.6436
>>6431
Tell that to the 100 million plus dead as a result of communism. Are you suggesting that we need to all die for the state to be abolished?
No.6437
>>6434
>>6435
yeah no shit of course its not. So are you agreeing with me or what? What possible way do you see of abolishing the concept of the state without changing peoples view on morality?
No.6439
>>6436
All of those places were firmly planted within the value form.
They didn't escape shit.
Are you capable of intellectually honest debate, or are you a shillboy?
No.6441
>>6439
lel
I really pity him, to be honest.
No.6460
>>6439
>>6441
What are you commie fuckers trying to tag team /liberty/? Sorry if the deaths of millions doesn't get your goat but most people value life. People want to prosper and live good fulfilling lives not freeze to death in a forced labor camp to help build the wonderful public projects for our great big brother Stalin. If you immoral fucks want to role play we have a whole board for you called /leftypol/. The people here like their lives and don't want the mass murders your systems make to have the ability to sign away our lives with a pen stroke.
And like what the fuck /liberty/ why the fuck is it that I am the only one arguing with these violent pricks? Where the fuck is everybody?
No.6464
>>6460
>switching ones society's corporate structure from a private one to a cooperate one will somehow result in labor camps and dictatorship
Reasonable response mate, how are you doing with those roads?
No.6466
>>6460
You're the one shouting me down under false pretenses.
Consider that for a second.
No.6469
>>6464
>switching ones society's corporate structure from a private one to a cooperate one will somehow result in labor camps and dictatorship
yeah an in every case that people have tried to rearrange the violence to better suit the "needs of the people" it has resulted in the deaths of millions. Your special brand of violence will not yield any different results than every other brand of violence. And being a snarky prick about the worst plight in the history of mankind is not going to win over any audiences any time soon comrade.
No.6470
>>6469
> rearrange the violence
Where did I say anything about violence?
No.6471
>>6466
>You're the one shouting me down under false pretenses.
You are advocating a system of might is right on a board specifically made to talk about peaceful voluntary association. You have in other posts advocated for your special form of communism which is functionally not very different from any other system of collectivization ever tried. It will result, if implemented, in the deaths of thousands to millions of people and you act like I'm the badguy?
Are you out of your fucking mind? Go fuck yourself! if anybody ever had any justification to shout someone down its when they want the death of millions to be reenacted with them leading the charge.
If you don't have the balls to stand up to a few strongly worded posts on an anonymous image board your going to have a little trouble sending people to the gulags or starving a race to death.
No.6472
>>6470
if its voluntary its not a state. If you are not using violence and simply advocating for a different economic arrangement in a free market I don't really have a problem with it. Well its not so much that I don't have a problem as much as I would not initiate force to stop you. I will definitely disagree with it.
No.6482
>>6466
Stop crying, pussy.
No.6920
OP here, I got in a debate with a /pol/lack, which I can say was only marginally better.
The debate included topics such as trans-humanism, eugenics, and gays. Basically, when I tried to point out a logical fallacy he committed, he just went
>muh fallacy
And went on to say why the slippery slope fallacy was bullshit and not getting rid of gays means we'll be screwing kids and animals 50 years down the line. I could've told him at that point that Sweden, a liberal country to say the very fucking least, recently outlawed bestiality (which is quite contradictory to what his slippery slope implies), but at that point I just lost interest in debating. How in the fuck can you reject the existence of logical fallacies just to suit your ideology? He also committed naturalistic fallacy and false dichotomies, but I didn't bother pointing that out.
Granted there's always the fallacy fallacy, so he's not necessarily wrong, but he could work on his debating skills.
No.6921
>>6920
>Slippery slope
Seriously, people use this shitty argument all the time. Once in a while, it actually does hold some merit, but these are just rare cases. Funnily, it does not apply to using drugs, because the gateway drug-theory was never proven. Try telling that to someone comparing sex with drugs, though.
No.6922
>>6920
Germany does not have gay marriage.
Germany had bestiality until 2013.
Now it's banned, whilst Germany still does not have gay marriage.
If slippery slopes were true, one would think the gay marriage would come first, before the bestiality. And that once gay civil unions came about, bestiality would be allowed, not the reverse.
No.6923
>>6922
It's not about ticking off a check list of legalizing behaviours. It's about creating constant tension and attacking the opposition.
After the revolution, the fags will be put against the wall.
No.6925
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>6923
Hate their politics, but always liked this song.
I dedicate this to you.
No.6940
Debating with idealists is like flogging a dead horse. Sorry for the horrible idiom, but it is true. Ad hominem is all too common with them and their ilk.
No.6951
The issue with "slippery slope" is that, in some cases, it is true, and in others, wrong.
Take gun rights, for instance. Now if that's not a slippery slope, I don't know what is. Bits and pieces of gun rights get taken away and none of those bits and pieces, despite all the shouting about "compromise" and other such bullshit, satisfy the anti-gunners.
No.6964
>>6951
The thing is, the anti-gunners would remove all guns in a second if they could (except those of the government), whereas the people who want to legalize gay marriage usually don't want to go much further, some SJW's notwithstanding.
No.6970
>>6964
True. I guess that's the difference. Though, antigunners love to say how they "don't want to get rid of all guns", even though immediately after they say they want to do exactly that.
No.6975
>>6411
>OP is fascist because he doesn't know that private property means exclusive right
Personal property is exclusive rights to the individual, yet syndicalists support it. Communal property is exclusive rights that prevent an individual from subsisting a living unless they involuntarily join the commune.
No.7645
>>6010
>You can not force people to associate with other people economically or socially just because you don't like the results of the non-association
But you can force people to not associate with other people economically or socially just because you don't like the results of the association? What's the difference? Either is authoritarian.
No.7646
>>7645
>But you can force people to not associate with other people economically or socially
No, we're not forcing anyone to not associate either. That's state-endorsed segregation.
No.7648
>>7646
Going back to >>5997:
>If you enforce rules by means of social and economic pressures (i.e. a conflict resolution organization threatens to cut off your water and tells grocery stores not to serve you) that's not coercion.
If that CRO is enforcing economic pressures, it's authoritarian. Are you then admitting that CROs are simply another form of state after all?
No.7654
>>7648
>If that CRO is enforcing economic pressures, it's authoritarian.
So you're saying that it's authoritarian to boycott someone, in other words, you have a duty to buy from him if not doing so would pressure him into changing his policies. That's retarded.
No.7662
>>7654
What I'm saying is that it's authoritarian to force someone else to boycott someone. Go ahead and read the post again if you didn't catch it, but that's what that AnCap was advocating.
No.7666
>>7662
All he said that was boycotting people isn't coercion. He never said that you have to boycott people. For example, if I don't like a company's policies, I can boycott them. However, I cannot force other people into boycotting them if they don't mind those practices. It's not boycotting if you're forced into it.