Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Torrocca]

Nah, it kinda did. The Enlightenment started around the late 1600s and it wasn't until nearly 1800 that the first couple of Liberal, Capitalist countries were up and running. One of them was a laughing stock to Europe at the time, and the other ended with, like, forty more revolutions and a couple of Napoleons. It took way longer after that for Liberalism to get beyond France and the USA.

Liberalism sure but capitalism isn't inherently attached at the hip to liberalism and spread quickly on it's own.

Feudalism was still pretty hip and popular for plenty of Europe for a long while :^)

[Firaxin]

Innovation, not Capitalism has got us to the living standards of today, innovation that could've been slightly slower but still there under socialism.

Heart disease is the result of Capitalism's brutal efficiency over enjoyment. People work at boring gray offices, in boring gray cubicles, in boring faded clothes, with next to no time to entertain themselves, while they are forced to sit at a screen for days on end. Innovation is of course trying to fix the problem, but we could just create a work environment where everyone enjoys their job.

Wealth is not a zero sum game and I never said it was, apologies if you misunderstood, but it should not be the main pursuit.

Innovation grows exponentially under capitalism, not just slightly faster. That alone is a reason to favor capitalism over all other economic models. Imagine a world without such rapid innovation. You wouldn't be bored to death at an office. You'd be on a farm, living at the mere sustenance level, with no days off, no medicine, no electricity and no clean water. Boredom would be the least of your problems.

Furthermore, socialist "innovation" only exists because of capitalism. Throughout the Cold War, the KGB routinely targeted American and Japanese manufacturers, with the goal of copying their methods and technology. This practice is continued by China, which rescinded its command economy in favor of imitating aspects of capitalism. In the early days of the USSR, Lenin alleviated the chronic shortages of goods by creating the New Economic Plan (NEP) which restored market principles to primary sectors such as agriculture and food services. Stalin's industrialization was made possible by hiring American corporations to build factories in the USSR. Even Karl Marx admitted that socialism is possible only because of capitalism. The relationship between the two is parasitic, and only capitalism can survive without the other.

And why is that? Do you truly believe those that innovate, innovated for profit alone? If they did, then they've lost massive respect from me, but you have yet to prove that, and I find the idea laughable. I admit that profit adds additional motivation but it is not the base motivation nor the motive many will admit to. In a socialist society many would still innovate for fame, convenience, or helping the collective, perhaps even more as ideas are no longer limited by what will make the most profit, funding would come from the State representing the collective.

[Autarkheia]

Marx believed socialism came after capitalism because that's how his theory of history worked. It's pointless to talk about socializing the means of production without first developing an industrial base, and the easiest way to do that is capitalism. Stalin showed it's also possible to industrialize with a command economy though which kind of debunks that idea.

More on topic: of course the private sector is more innovative, but it would be wrong to say no innovation can come from government. It has, it's just not as fast or efficient, so government is best suited for only projects that are beyond the capacity of the private sector. How many of those exist, if any, is up to the reader.

[Industrial Skyrim]

And why is that? Do you truly believe those that innovate, innovated for profit alone? If they did, then they've lost massive respect from me, but you have yet to prove that, and I find the idea laughable. I admit that profit adds additional motivation but it is not the base motivation nor the motive many will admit to. In a socialist society many would still innovate for fame, convenience, or helping the collective, perhaps even more as ideas are no longer limited by what will make the most profit, funding would come from the State representing the collective.

We can clearly see that capitalist-oriented nations such as the US, Japan, South Korea, and Germany dominate in the fields of science and innovation. The Israeli IT sector boomed in the 80's and 90's after the government loosened economic regulations and lowered corporate taxes. Simply put, there is, in fact, empirical evidence demonstrating that the profit motive strongly encourages innovation.

Furthermore, another aspect of the profit motive to consider is banking and investment. You may have a great idea, but there's a good chance that you don't have the resources on hand to make it happen. Under capitalism, you can pitch your idea to a bank and/or investors, and if they see potential, they will provide you with funds that you can use to gather the resources that you need for your project. Without banks and investors, who seek to finance innovators with the expectation of profit, your good idea will likely remain in the confines of your mind.

Jesus, it's like you entirely missed the part where this is happening under Anarchism to spout this boring nonsense. News flash, hun: people will be willing to do whatever they damn well want to do under Anarchism; if that means making luxury sports cars for their entire commune, they'll find a way to get that done. If it's under the more syndicalist model of unions, there'll be some union dedicated to the manufacturing of vehicles somewhere that gets it done. And why the fuck do you, Petro, keep bambling on about stupid shit like, "oH iT wOuLd CoSt BiLLiOnS oF dOLLaRs FoR aNaRcHiStS tO dO!!1!" when a major aspect of Anarchism in the first place is to get rid of Capitalism?

Honestly, if you can't even be assed to understand what you're fucking talking about before spouting off nonsense of, "oh, wELl wHo wiLl Do WoRk wiThOuT cOmPeNsAtiOn?!?!" or whatever dull talking point you can think of that can't possibly imagine a system beyond the one we're living in, then there's barely a point to debating here. It's literally not my job whatsoever to babysit you through the steps of Anarchism before we even manage to hold a debate about what that shit entails. It's almost laughable really how every debate here requires pages of explanation on this frankly easy-to-understand subject before there can actually be a debate.

Here's a fucking entire library of information and books with more than enough to it to get you guys to a simple enough point of understanding, since apparently that'll be the only thing that even works to get an actual debate going.

I don't appreciate condescension, much less from an ignoramus who obviously fails to grasp the complex workings of an economy. Your offensive language demonstrates to me that you are not interested in a mature, scholarly debate. Ad hominens are not arguments. Your opinions and feelings are not facts. People aren't going to agree with you merely because they've read the same things that you've read.

If you choose to ignore facts merely because you find them so dull, then do us all favor, and leave. I assure you, that you will not be missed.

[Firaxin]

And why is that? Do you truly believe those that innovate, innovated for profit alone? If they did, then they've lost massive respect from me, but you have yet to prove that, and I find the idea laughable. I admit that profit adds additional motivation but it is not the base motivation nor the motive many will admit to. In a socialist society many would still innovate for fame, convenience, or helping the collective, perhaps even more as ideas are no longer limited by what will make the most profit, funding would come from the State representing the collective.

We can clearly see that capitalist-oriented nations such as the US, Japan, South Korea, and Germany dominate in the fields of science and innovation. The Israeli IT sector boomed in the 80's and 90's after the government loosened economic regulations and lowered corporate taxes. Simply put, there is, in fact, empirical evidence demonstrating that the profit motive strongly encourages innovation.

Furthermore, another aspect of the profit motive to consider is banking and investment. You may have a great idea, but there's a good chance that you don't have the resources on hand to make it happen. Under capitalism, you can pitch your idea to a bank and/or investors, and if they see potential, they will provide you with funds that you can use to gather the resources that you need for your project. Without banks and investors, who seek to finance innovators with the expectation of profit, your good idea will likely remain in the confines of your mind.

Jesus, it's like you entirely missed the part where this is happening under Anarchism to spout this boring nonsense. News flash, hun: people will be willing to do whatever they damn well want to do under Anarchism; if that means making luxury sports cars for their entire commune, they'll find a way to get that done. If it's under the more syndicalist model of unions, there'll be some union dedicated to the manufacturing of vehicles somewhere that gets it done. And why the fuck do you, Petro, keep bambling on about stupid shit like, "oH iT wOuLd CoSt BiLLiOnS oF dOLLaRs FoR aNaRcHiStS tO dO!!1!" when a major aspect of Anarchism in the first place is to get rid of Capitalism?

Honestly, if you can't even be assed to understand what you're fucking talking about before spouting off nonsense of, "oh, wELl wHo wiLl Do WoRk wiThOuT cOmPeNsAtiOn?!?!" or whatever dull talking point you can think of that can't possibly imagine a system beyond the one we're living in, then there's barely a point to debating here. It's literally not my job whatsoever to babysit you through the steps of Anarchism before we even manage to hold a debate about what that shit entails. It's almost laughable really how every debate here requires pages of explanation on this frankly easy-to-understand subject before there can actually be a debate.

Here's a fucking entire library of information and books with more than enough to it to get you guys to a simple enough point of understanding, since apparently that'll be the only thing that even works to get an actual debate going.

I don't appreciate condescension, much less from an ignoramus who obviously fails the grasp the complex workings of an economy. Your offensive language demonstrates to me that you are not interested in a mature, scholarly debate. Ad hominens are not arguments. Your opinions and feelings are not facts. People aren't going to agree with you merely because they've read the same things that you've read.

If you choose to ignore facts merely because you find them so dull, then do us all favor, and leave. I assure you, that you will not be missed.

They dominate because they are some the best nations in the world for research. Korea has always had a tradition of scientific pursuits, America is the global hegemon, Japan and Germany are Workaholic central, plus this is without any fair comparisons between a socialist country someone like me would support.

Economic sectors booming = Innovation

Banks and investors are not the only people who can fund stuff. The state, representing the collective, could fund innovation, for the purpose of advancing the collective. It does not need to make money off innovation. I literally said this above, it's like you didn't read or understand it.

[Petrolheadia]

Innovation grows exponentially under capitalism, not just slightly faster. That alone is a reason to favor capitalism over all other economic models. Imagine a world without such rapid innovation. You wouldn't be bored to death at an office. You'd be on a farm, living at the mere sustenance level, with no days off, no medicine, no electricity and no clean water. Boredom would be the least of your problems.

Furthermore, socialist "innovation" only exists because of capitalism. Throughout the Cold War, the KGB routinely targeted American and Japanese manufacturers, with the goal of copying their methods and technology. This practice is continued by China, which rescinded its command economy in favor of imitating aspects of capitalism. In the early days of the USSR, Lenin alleviated the chronic shortages of goods by creating the New Economic Plan (NEP) which restored market principles to primary sectors such as agriculture and food services. Stalin's industrialization was made possible by hiring American corporations to build factories in the USSR. Even Karl Marx admitted that socialism is possible only because of capitalism. The relationship between the two is parasitic, and only capitalism can survive without the other.

And why is that? Do you truly believe those that innovate, innovated for profit alone? If they did, then they've lost massive respect from me, but you have yet to prove that, and I find the idea laughable. I admit that profit adds additional motivation but it is not the base motivation nor the motive many will admit to. In a socialist society many would still innovate for fame, convenience, or helping the collective, perhaps even more as ideas are no longer limited by what will make the most profit, funding would come from the State representing the collective.

As I said quite a few times, people do innovate for its own sake, but they innovate even more when rewarded with profit.

Respect is a nice thing, but it won't buy you shit. I don't know about you, but I'd rather sweep streets for $100k than innovate for $10k.

[Petrolheadia]

We can clearly see that capitalist-oriented nations such as the US, Japan, South Korea, and Germany dominate in the fields of science and innovation. The Israeli IT sector boomed in the 80's and 90's after the government loosened economic regulations and lowered corporate taxes. Simply put, there is, in fact, empirical evidence demonstrating that the profit motive strongly encourages innovation.

Furthermore, another aspect of the profit motive to consider is banking and investment. You may have a great idea, but there's a good chance that you don't have the resources on hand to make it happen. Under capitalism, you can pitch your idea to a bank and/or investors, and if they see potential, they will provide you with funds that you can use to gather the resources that you need for your project. Without banks and investors, who seek to finance innovators with the expectation of profit, your good idea will likely remain in the confines of your mind.

I don't appreciate condescension, much less from an ignoramus who obviously fails the grasp the complex workings of an economy. Your offensive language demonstrates to me that you are not interested in a mature, scholarly debate. Ad hominens are not arguments. Your opinions and feelings are not facts. People aren't going to agree with you merely because they've read the same things that you've read.

If you choose to ignore facts merely because you find them so dull, then do us all favor, and leave. I assure you, that you will not be missed.

They dominate because they are some the best nations in the world for research. Korea has always had a tradition of scientific pursuits, America is the global hegemon, Japan and Germany are Workaholic central, plus this is without any fair comparisons between a socialist country someone like me would support.

You've strangely missed the part where Israel's research boom is caused by loosened economic regulations and lower corporate taxes.

[Industrial Skyrim]

They dominate because they are some the best nations in the world for research. Korea has always had a tradition of scientific pursuits, America is the global hegemon, Japan and Germany are Workaholic central, plus this is without any fair comparisons between a socialist country someone like me would support.

The only innovative socialist nation is China, which has some semblance of a free market and is very open to foreign investment, allowing for the acquisition of funds that can be invested into innovation. Otherwise, there are no successful socialist nations for comparison! The USSR doesn't count, since it's discoveries often relied on stolen foreign technology and yielded little to no benefit for the general public.

The nations I named were named precisely because they are some of the best innovators, and they didn't get that way by adopting socialism. Cultural appreciation for science only matters when you have free markets. Consider the case of Iran, which was once a world leader for science but now suffers from stagnation, poor innovation, weak foreign investment (even without sanctions, the Iranian economy is heavily regulated and closed to foreign investment), and loss of talent via emigration. Iran invests heavily in science and education. In fact, Iranians are among the most educated nationalities in the Middle East. Yet, their country is weak when it comes to innovation.

Economic sectors booming = Innovation

I take it that you meant to say that a booming economy does not equal innovation. While it is true that there are no absolute guarantees that firms will invest their gains into R&D in a booming economy, firms are strong incentivized into doing so for the sake of being competitive and retaining or expanding their market share.

Banks and investors are not the only people who can fund stuff. The state, representing the collective, could fund innovation, for the purpose of advancing the collective. It does not need to make money off innovation. I literally said this above, it's like you didn't read or understand it.

The state can fund research, but it is less efficient than the market, will often prioritize political objectives over the practical needs of the public, and is financed via taxation, thereby removing funds from the economy that would have otherwise been more efficiently invested by firms and individuals.

Just like I said to that other poster, just because someone reads the same things that you do, that does not mean that they will agree with you. I don't appreciate condescension, much less from people who fail to realize the obvious.

[Elwher]

Banks and investors are not the only people who can fund stuff. The state, representing the collective, could fund innovation, for the purpose of advancing the collective. It does not need to make money off innovation. I literally said this above, it's like you didn't read or understand it.

The state can fund research, but it is less efficient than the market, will often prioritize political objectives over the practical needs of the public, and is financed via taxation, thereby removing funds from the economy that would have otherwise been more efficiently invested by firms and individuals.

Just like I said to that other poster, just because someone reads the same things that you do, that does not mean that they will agree with you. I don't appreciate condescension, much less from people who fail to realize the obvious.

The state and the market will, in general, tend to support different types of research. The market funded research will be more immediate, more technological in nature as their goals are to make money off it as soon as possible. This leads to new and innovative consumer products, which make everyday life easier and make profits for the investors.

In the best cases, the state will be more interested in funding basic theoretical research which, while not having an immediate impact on society, will have a longer lasting effect. In the worst cases, of course, the state will be funding projects to prove ideas that are politically desirable, like the Soviet funding of Lysenko and his theories.

[North Saitama]

How will you make such luxuries if their are no professionals willing to design them, market them, negotiate contracts to source parts to manufacture them or create infrastructure to maintain and repair them? No one is going to invest much time into these things if you aren't going to compensate them with a high salary.

And how is a commune going to bear the multi-billion-dollar R&D costs of carmaking?

1. Jesus, it's like you entirely missed the part where this is happening under Anarchism to spout this boring nonsense. News flash, hun: people will be willing to do whatever they damn well want to do under Anarchism; if that means making luxury sports cars for their entire commune, they'll find a way to get that done. If it's under the more syndicalist model of unions, there'll be some union dedicated to the manufacturing of vehicles somewhere that gets it done. And why the fuck do you, Petro, keep bambling on about stupid shit like, "oH iT wOuLd CoSt BiLLiOnS oF dOLLaRs FoR aNaRcHiStS tO dO!!1!" when a major aspect of Anarchism in the first place is to get rid of Capitalism?

Honestly, if you can't even be assed to understand what you're fucking talking about before spouting off nonsense of, "oh, wELl wHo wiLl Do WoRk wiThOuT cOmPeNsAtiOn?!?!" or whatever dull talking point you can think of that can't possibly imagine a system beyond the one we're living in, then there's barely a point to debating here. It's literally not my job whatsoever to babysit you through the steps of Anarchism before we even manage to hold a debate about what that shit entails. It's almost laughable really how every debate here requires pages of explanation on this frankly easy-to-understand subject before there can actually be a debate.

Here's a fucking entire library of information and books with more than enough to it to get you guys to a simple enough point of understanding, since apparently that'll be the only thing that even works to get an actual debate going.

So again, how would I translate my medical skills into said luxury car?

2. Make it a mutual agreement that's beneficial to yourself and their commune. Offer your labor for x amount of days or whatever for the car in return.

1. Will they WANT to though, and, more importantly, will they want to make cars for other people? You seem to think that nobody will mind busting their asses day in and day out for complete strangers to no benefit to themselves. Indeed, I have plenty criticised this blindly optimistic assumption that everybody will just be altruistic and hold hands and sing kumbaya after a hard day's work.

Capitalism at least has a tangible motivation for work; wealth, and the work used to earn it, can be exchanged for what can enrich someone's quality of life. Incidentally, the flexibility of said wealth also means that it is almost universally desirable, as a means of personally enriching one's quality of life. What makes it concrete, though, is that there is a direct reward for hard work, and the ability to satisfy wants and needs with said reward.

Honestly, I feel like you really haven't learned a damned thing. I almost feel like I am repeating myself over and over.

2. So bartering, then? Honestly, I feel like you are making a better argument for Capitalism than Anarcho-Communism. Under Capitalism, you don't need to make short-term exchanges to get specific things; you just hold a long-term contract in exchange for a form of currency, then just exchange this currency for the car.

[Torrocca]

1. Jesus, it's like you entirely missed the part where this is happening under Anarchism to spout this boring nonsense. News flash, hun: people will be willing to do whatever they damn well want to do under Anarchism; if that means making luxury sports cars for their entire commune, they'll find a way to get that done. If it's under the more syndicalist model of unions, there'll be some union dedicated to the manufacturing of vehicles somewhere that gets it done. And why the fuck do you, Petro, keep bambling on about stupid shit like, "oH iT wOuLd CoSt BiLLiOnS oF dOLLaRs FoR aNaRcHiStS tO dO!!1!" when a major aspect of Anarchism in the first place is to get rid of Capitalism?

Honestly, if you can't even be assed to understand what you're fucking talking about before spouting off nonsense of, "oh, wELl wHo wiLl Do WoRk wiThOuT cOmPeNsAtiOn?!?!" or whatever dull talking point you can think of that can't possibly imagine a system beyond the one we're living in, then there's barely a point to debating here. It's literally not my job whatsoever to babysit you through the steps of Anarchism before we even manage to hold a debate about what that shit entails. It's almost laughable really how every debate here requires pages of explanation on this frankly easy-to-understand subject before there can actually be a debate.

Here's a fucking entire library of information and books with more than enough to it to get you guys to a simple enough point of understanding, since apparently that'll be the only thing that even works to get an actual debate going.



2. Make it a mutual agreement that's beneficial to yourself and their commune. Offer your labor for x amount of days or whatever for the car in return.

1. Will they WANT to though, and, more importantly, will they want to make cars for other people? You seem to think that nobody will mind busting their asses day in and day out for complete strangers to no benefit to themselves. Indeed, I have plenty criticised this blindly optimistic assumption that everybody will just be altruistic and hold hands and sing kumbaya after a hard day's work.

Capitalism at least has a tangible motivation for work; wealth, and the work used to earn it, can be exchanged for what can enrich someone's quality of life. Incidentally, the flexibility of said wealth also means that it is almost universally desirable, as a means of personally enriching one's quality of life. What makes it concrete, though, is that there is a direct reward for hard work, and the ability to satisfy wants and needs with said reward.

Honestly, I feel like you really haven't learned a damned thing. I almost feel like I am repeating myself over and over.

2. So bartering, then? Honestly, I feel like you are making a better argument for Capitalism than Anarcho-Communism. Under Capitalism, you don't need to make short-term exchanges to get specific things; you just hold a long-term contract in exchange for a form of currency, then just exchange this currency for the car.

There's plenty of science showing that wealth isn't a primary motivator of any kind except in a system where it's literally fucking needed to survive, IE under this Capitalistic bullshit where having enough of it means not having a home or food or whathaveyou.

For starters. Now, I know that, shockingly enough, people are much more happy to do things they want to do than to do things that'll make them rich enough to even survive in the first place, but it's true and it's backed by numerous psychological findings.

[Firaxin]

They dominate because they are some the best nations in the world for research. Korea has always had a tradition of scientific pursuits, America is the global hegemon, Japan and Germany are Workaholic central, plus this is without any fair comparisons between a socialist country someone like me would support.

You've strangely missed the part where Israel's research boom is caused by loosened economic regulations and lower corporate taxes.

Of course they did, but growing businesses does not mean growing innovation, which was what I meant. Plus Information Technology is not research, but I think you made a simple misread.

[Firaxin]

They dominate because they are some the best nations in the world for research. Korea has always had a tradition of scientific pursuits, America is the global hegemon, Japan and Germany are Workaholic central, plus this is without any fair comparisons between a socialist country someone like me would support.

The only innovative socialist nation is China, which has some semblance of a free market and is very open to foreign investment, allowing for the acquisition of funds that can be invested into innovation. Otherwise, there are no successful socialist nations for comparison! The USSR doesn't count, since it's discoveries often relied on stolen foreign technology and yielded little to no benefit for the general public.

The nations I named were named precisely because they are some of the best innovators, and they didn't get that way by adopting socialism. Cultural appreciation for science only matters when you have free markets. Consider the case of Iran, which was once a world leader for science but now suffers from stagnation, poor innovation, weak foreign investment (even without sanctions, the Iranian economy is heavily regulated and closed to foreign investment), and loss of talent via emigration. Iran invests heavily in science and education. In fact, Iranians are among the most educated nationalities in the Middle East. Yet, their country is weak when it comes to innovation.

Economic sectors booming = Innovation

I take it that you meant to say that a booming economy does not equal innovation. While it is true that there are no absolute guarantees that firms will invest their gains into R&D in a booming economy, firms are strong incentivized into doing so for the sake of being competitive and retaining or expanding their market share.

Banks and investors are not the only people who can fund stuff. The state, representing the collective, could fund innovation, for the purpose of advancing the collective. It does not need to make money off innovation. I literally said this above, it's like you didn't read or understand it.

The state can fund research, but it is less efficient than the market, will often prioritize political objectives over the practical needs of the public, and is financed via taxation, thereby removing funds from the economy that would have otherwise been more efficiently invested by firms and individuals.

Just like I said to that other poster, just because someone reads the same things that you do, that does not mean that they will agree with you. I don't appreciate condescension, much less from people who fail to realize the obvious.

Exactly, which is why there is no fair comparison as I would support none of the socialist countries above.

The only reason they haven't tried Socialism is because they were under heavy influence of the Capitalist United States for the past century. You have no proof that appreciation for science only happens in free markets, and it's likely that it is false. The USSR may not have innovated alone, but they did indeed have an appreciation for science, otherwise they would not see the importance in stealing the technology of others.

Iran is screwed because it's been left in the Middle East with endless turmoil, remaining one the few barely stable countries left. I do not know the situation of the Middle East well, but I know it is far worse than any other place in the world. Iran isn't very liberal either, which as you know, would harm the amount of people allowed to innovate in the first place.

Yes but only in research that will make them more money, limiting what they will fund. All research ultimately helps us, the collective, thus the state would not have this limit.

What if the political objective is the practical needs of the public? That is what I want.

I'm not being condescending. You know that Key and Peele skit where they read the text messages in different tones? I think that's what's going on here.

[Petrolheadia]

1. Will they WANT to though, and, more importantly, will they want to make cars for other people? You seem to think that nobody will mind busting their asses day in and day out for complete strangers to no benefit to themselves. Indeed, I have plenty criticised this blindly optimistic assumption that everybody will just be altruistic and hold hands and sing kumbaya after a hard day's work.

Capitalism at least has a tangible motivation for work; wealth, and the work used to earn it, can be exchanged for what can enrich someone's quality of life. Incidentally, the flexibility of said wealth also means that it is almost universally desirable, as a means of personally enriching one's quality of life. What makes it concrete, though, is that there is a direct reward for hard work, and the ability to satisfy wants and needs with said reward.

Honestly, I feel like you really haven't learned a damned thing. I almost feel like I am repeating myself over and over.

2. So bartering, then? Honestly, I feel like you are making a better argument for Capitalism than Anarcho-Communism. Under Capitalism, you don't need to make short-term exchanges to get specific things; you just hold a long-term contract in exchange for a form of currency, then just exchange this currency for the car.

There's plenty of science showing that wealth isn't a primary motivator of any kind except in a system where it's literally fucking needed to survive, IE under this Capitalistic bullshit where having enough of it means not having a home or food or whathaveyou.

For starters. Now, I know that, shockingly enough, people are much more happy to do things they want to do than to do things that'll make them rich enough to even survive in the first place, but it's true and it's backed by numerous psychological findings.

You know why you're behaving like talking to kids? Because you're saying things so obvious that we know them.

It's just that people need a motive to do what is needed, and profit is quite a good one.

Profit is the difference between me wanting to spend my life listening to Freebird for the millionth time and messing with the LSPD and me actually providing a valuable service to society. Profit is the difference between me wanting to keep my car knowledge to pointless Internet discussions and me wanting to someday spin it into a profitable service.

You've strangely missed the part where Israel's research boom is caused by loosened economic regulations and lower corporate taxes.

Of course they did, but growing businesses does not mean growing innovation, which was what I meant.

It does. In the high-tech sector, in which Israel excels, you either run or get stampeded by the competition.

The only innovative socialist nation is China, which has some semblance of a free market and is very open to foreign investment, allowing for the acquisition of funds that can be invested into innovation. Otherwise, there are no successful socialist nations for comparison! The USSR doesn't count, since it's discoveries often relied on stolen foreign technology and yielded little to no benefit for the general public.

The nations I named were named precisely because they are some of the best innovators, and they didn't get that way by adopting socialism. Cultural appreciation for science only matters when you have free markets. Consider the case of Iran, which was once a world leader for science but now suffers from stagnation, poor innovation, weak foreign investment (even without sanctions, the Iranian economy is heavily regulated and closed to foreign investment), and loss of talent via emigration. Iran invests heavily in science and education. In fact, Iranians are among the most educated nationalities in the Middle East. Yet, their country is weak when it comes to innovation.


I take it that you meant to say that a booming economy does not equal innovation. While it is true that there are no absolute guarantees that firms will invest their gains into R&D in a booming economy, firms are strong incentivized into doing so for the sake of being competitive and retaining or expanding their market share.


The state can fund research, but it is less efficient than the market, will often prioritize political objectives over the practical needs of the public, and is financed via taxation, thereby removing funds from the economy that would have otherwise been more efficiently invested by firms and individuals.

Just like I said to that other poster, just because someone reads the same things that you do, that does not mean that they will agree with you. I don't appreciate condescension, much less from people who fail to realize the obvious.

Exactly, which is why there is no fair comparison as I would support none of the socialist countries above.

The only reason they haven't tried Socialism is because they were under heavy influence of the Capitalist United States for the past century. You have no proof that appreciation for science only happens in free markets, and it's likely that it is false. The USSR may not have innovated alone, but they did indeed have an appreciation for science, otherwise they would not see the importance in stealing the technology of others.

Appreciation does not mean jack shit. Work does, and that the USSR didn't do, which you admitted yourself.

Iran is screwed because it's been left in the Middle East with endless turmoil, remaining one the few barely stable countries left. I do not know the situation of the Middle East well, but I know it is far worse than any other place in the world. Iran isn't very liberal either, which as you know, would harm the amount of people allowed to innovate in the first place.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to innovate with a large Orthodox population and in what's basically an active conflict zone.

Yes but only in research that will make them more money, limiting what they will fund. All research ultimately helps us, the collective,

Very bold. Any backing?

thus the state would not have this limit.

Great, money spent on bullshit.

What if the political objective is the practical needs of the public? That is what I want.

Meanwhile, the business objective is delivering products that people consider worth buying, and you don't even need to want that to have it happen.

I'm not being condescending. You know that Key and Peele skit where they read the text messages in different tones? I think that's what's going on here.

Are we discussing economics or you?

[Firaxin]

Of course they did, but growing businesses does not mean growing innovation, which was what I meant.

It does. In the high-tech sector, in which Israel excels, you either run or get stampeded by the competition.

Exactly, which is why there is no fair comparison as I would support none of the socialist countries above.

The only reason they haven't tried Socialism is because they were under heavy influence of the Capitalist United States for the past century. You have no proof that appreciation for science only happens in free markets, and it's likely that it is false. The USSR may not have innovated alone, but they did indeed have an appreciation for science, otherwise they would not see the importance in stealing the technology of others.

Appreciation does not mean jack shit. Work does, and that the USSR didn't do, which you admitted yourself.

Iran is screwed because it's been left in the Middle East with endless turmoil, remaining one the few barely stable countries left. I do not know the situation of the Middle East well, but I know it is far worse than any other place in the world. Iran isn't very liberal either, which as you know, would harm the amount of people allowed to innovate in the first place.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to innovate with a large Orthodox population and in what's basically an active conflict zone.

Yes but only in research that will make them more money, limiting what they will fund. All research ultimately helps us, the collective,

Very bold. Any backing?

thus the state would not have this limit.

Great, money spent on bullshit.

What if the political objective is the practical needs of the public? That is what I want.

Meanwhile, the business objective is delivering products that people consider worth buying, and you don't even need to want that to have it happen.

I'm not being condescending. You know that Key and Peele skit where they read the text messages in different tones? I think that's what's going on here.

Are we discussing economics or you?

In the that specific sector, I'll give it a maybe. I'm not familiar with Israeli markets and what their companies do different in comparison to those in the US. I do know that this specific principle does not guarantee innovation, which was my point. They could simply be growing faster cause they are paying less in taxes.

Correct. Industrial Skyrim claimed that there was no "real" appreciation of science without free markets, and I was just using logic to prove him wrong.

Israel is supported by the Global Hegemon and several other foreign countries.

I'm just going with the logic Knowledge = Power. Plus, what could possibly be genuinely studied that's so incredibly stupid it's entirely useless? The only thing I can think of is re-researching stuff we know so intrinsically that we know it like we know how to move our bodies.

Exactly. You need not make a genuinely valuable product, you need only convince them it is a genuinely valuable product, or train them to just purchase a specific thing without checking its value.

Industrial Skyrim seemed to be reading my replies in a different tone than I am and I think the skit is the best method to understand what is going on, just a little thing I wanted to point out.

[Torrocca]

There's plenty of science showing that wealth isn't a primary motivator of any kind except in a system where it's literally fucking needed to survive, IE under this Capitalistic bullshit where having enough of it means not having a home or food or whathaveyou.

For starters. Now, I know that, shockingly enough, people are much more happy to do things they want to do than to do things that'll make them rich enough to even survive in the first place, but it's true and it's backed by numerous psychological findings.

You know why you're behaving like talking to kids? Because you're saying things so obvious that we know them.

It's just that people need a motive to do what is needed, and profit is quite a good one.

Profit is the difference between me wanting to spend my life listening to Freebird for the millionth time and messing with the LSPD and me actually providing a valuable service to society. Profit is the difference between me wanting to keep my car knowledge to pointless Internet discussions and me wanting to someday spin it into a profitable service.

Lol, profit isn't even a needed motive whatsoever to get things done that are needed to get done. It's honestly mind-bogglingly asinine that anyone would earnestly believe that. Just because you, specifically, happen to think you couldn't possibly dare to exist in society where you couldn't fulfill your specific greedy tendencies because your care for society only extends as far as you can deride wealth from it doesn't mean every or even the vast majority of people operate on the same stupid, shitty principles that you do. Honestly, the simple fact that you think it does in the first place, contrary to all sorts of studies that show otherwise when it comes to the human psyche is pretty telling when it comes to your backwards beliefs about humanity.

[Oil exporting People]

Opinions on Cash Flow Tax?

[Santa Apolonia]

Why people keep discussing with Commies and its derivatives it's beyond me.

If those silly Commies had read Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis by L.V.Mises and Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship by J.Huerta de Soto they wouldn't be here trying to say that their version of Socialism is going to work this time and that all other versions tried before weren't true socialism.

[Autarkheia]

Marxism will always appeal to teenagers because it offers a simple good vs. evil narrative, and despite what Marxists say, it's utopian. There are some non-Marxist forms of socialism that are interesting and could maybe work someday (eg. market socialism, libertarian socialism, some kinds of anarchism) but those are utopian as well since they're mostly theoretical. State socialism very clearly doesn't work though and even though I dislike the Austrian school as a whole, they were definitely right in their analysis of it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Whatever happened to 36 camera perspective?

[North Saitama]

1. Will they WANT to though, and, more importantly, will they want to make cars for other people? You seem to think that nobody will mind busting their asses day in and day out for complete strangers to no benefit to themselves. Indeed, I have plenty criticised this blindly optimistic assumption that everybody will just be altruistic and hold hands and sing kumbaya after a hard day's work.

Capitalism at least has a tangible motivation for work; wealth, and the work used to earn it, can be exchanged for what can enrich someone's quality of life. Incidentally, the flexibility of said wealth also means that it is almost universally desirable, as a means of personally enriching one's quality of life. What makes it concrete, though, is that there is a direct reward for hard work, and the ability to satisfy wants and needs with said reward.

Honestly, I feel like you really haven't learned a damned thing. I almost feel like I am repeating myself over and over.

2. So bartering, then? Honestly, I feel like you are making a better argument for Capitalism than Anarcho-Communism. Under Capitalism, you don't need to make short-term exchanges to get specific things; you just hold a long-term contract in exchange for a form of currency, then just exchange this currency for the car.

There's plenty of science showing that wealth isn't a primary motivator of any kind except in a system where it's literally fucking needed to survive, IE under this Capitalistic bullshit where having enough of it means not having a home or food or whathaveyou.

For starters. Now, I know that, shockingly enough, people are much more happy to do things they want to do than to do things that'll make them rich enough to even survive in the first place, but it's true and it's backed by numerous psychological findings.

So what motivation is there for me to work, then, especially for the benefit of complete strangers? If not money, why would I work for other people, and not just have a small farm somewhere and raise my own food, and just hoard resources to myself?

Even if I actually enjoy building cars, what motivation is there for me, and maybe a couple friends, to actually build any more cars than to suit our own interests? If I enjoy building cars, the motive is usually not the task itself, but, rather, to a specific end; I might just want to go driving, so I, and maybe some other like-minded people, just pool our skills just enough to build cars for ourselves, so we can go driving.

Once again, you are assuming that the existence of people doing something for reasons other than money is a suitable economic system. That, just because hobbies exist, that people will be willing to just continually do them for free for the benefit of complete strangers.

Furthermore, what about the unpleasant-but-important jobs? What motivation is there for someone to become, say, a plumber, or a farmer? Especially a farmer, as farming is not easy work, and there is still no motivation to give even a single damn about complete strangers. Therefore, you just end-up with farmers hoarding food for themselves, and not enough farmers to actually feed a functioning society. Either that, or either a new set of classes where farmers are on top and have power over society.

[Torrocca]

There's plenty of science showing that wealth isn't a primary motivator of any kind except in a system where it's literally fucking needed to survive, IE under this Capitalistic bullshit where having enough of it means not having a home or food or whathaveyou.

For starters. Now, I know that, shockingly enough, people are much more happy to do things they want to do than to do things that'll make them rich enough to even survive in the first place, but it's true and it's backed by numerous psychological findings.

So what motivation is there for me to work, then, especially for the benefit of complete strangers? If not money, why would I work for other people, and not just have a small farm somewhere and raise my own food, and just hoard resources to myself?

Do you all just, like, not have any needs and wants beyond, "M O R E M O N E Y", or some shit? Even doing labor for the most selfish of reasons still would mean laboring for the benefit of your community at the end of the day because, as is fucking obvious, a one-person effort isn't sustainable to produce every last need and want you may happen to have. Never mind the simple fucking fact that we're a social species in the first place, I have severe doubts you'd earnestly go far in life screaming about the ills of Anarchism for forever in an Anarchist society while living a hermit's life simply because of how absurdly miserable that shit would be, never mind how stupid and petty of a struggle life would be by being all alone like that. There's a million other things that spur motivation beyond monetary gain, and the very simple fact that you can't at all even recognize that makes me question even the maturity of your ideology in the first place.

EDIT:

Furthermore, what about the unpleasant-but-important jobs? What motivation is there for someone to become, say, a plumber, or a farmer? Especially a farmer, as farming is not easy work, and there is still no motivation to give even a single damn about complete strangers. Therefore, you just end-up with farmers hoarding food for themselves, and not enough farmers to actually feed a functioning society. Either that, or either a new set of classes where farmers are on top and have power over society.

I just love the general depravity of this entire statement. Is your family nothing but strangers to you? Your friends? Your neighbors? How did humanity thrive in simple communities for hundreds of thousands of years before today if all they knew were strangers?

Simply put, your ideology is so shitty that you literally can't even imagine a life where you're earnestly and willingly involved in the wellbeing of your own community for the sake of your family, friends, and neighbors, apparently.

[North Saitama]

So what motivation is there for me to work, then, especially for the benefit of complete strangers? If not money, why would I work for other people, and not just have a small farm somewhere and raise my own food, and just hoard resources to myself?

Do you all just, like, not have any needs and wants beyond, "M O R E M O N E Y", or some shit? Even doing labor for the most selfish of reasons still would mean laboring for the benefit of your community at the end of the day because, as is fucking obvious, a one-person effort isn't sustainable to produce every last need and want you may happen to have. Never mind the simple fucking fact that we're a social species in the first place, I have severe doubts you'd earnestly go far in life screaming about the ills of Anarchism for forever in an Anarchist society while living a hermit's life simply because of how absurdly miserable that shit would be, never mind how stupid and petty of a struggle life would be by being all alone like that. There's a million other things that spur motivation beyond monetary gain, and the very simple fact that you can't at all even recognize that makes me question even the maturity of your ideology in the first place.

You didn't answer my question in the slightest. I asked for a concrete motive, and you gave me some vague claim that other motives exist, and that humans are a social species (even though introversion and even misandry are things) then act like I am unreasonable for suggesting that an economic system should have a concrete basis.

The fact that you can try and present to me a government-less economic system based entirely on abstract motives is either ultra-clueless or intellectually dishonest. It makes Authoritarian Socialism look reasonable in comparison; at least it has a concrete basis, which is a gun pointed at the people.

[Torrocca]

Do you all just, like, not have any needs and wants beyond, "M O R E M O N E Y", or some shit? Even doing labor for the most selfish of reasons still would mean laboring for the benefit of your community at the end of the day because, as is fucking obvious, a one-person effort isn't sustainable to produce every last need and want you may happen to have. Never mind the simple fucking fact that we're a social species in the first place, I have severe doubts you'd earnestly go far in life screaming about the ills of Anarchism for forever in an Anarchist society while living a hermit's life simply because of how absurdly miserable that shit would be, never mind how stupid and petty of a struggle life would be by being all alone like that. There's a million other things that spur motivation beyond monetary gain, and the very simple fact that you can't at all even recognize that makes me question even the maturity of your ideology in the first place.

You didn't answer my question in the slightest. I asked for a concrete motive, and you gave me some vague claim that other motives exist, and that humans are a social species (even though introversion and even misandry are things) then act like I am unreasonable for suggesting that an economic system should have a concrete basis.

The fact that you can try and present to me a government-less economic system based entirely on abstract motives is either ultra-clueless or intellectually dishonest. It makes Authoritarian Socialism look reasonable in comparison; at least it has a concrete basis, which is a gun pointed at the people.

The concrete basis is the simple fucking fact of the matter that profits are not and never will be the primary motive behind human activity, for fuck sake. Suggesting otherwise flies in the face of all the psychological studies of human drive and motive and all sorts of other science behind the human condition and completely goes against what people actually do. Do you not have hobbies? Do you not do things as simple as cleaning dishes? Do you not feed yourself? Do you not attend school? I can't imagine you do, since none of those activities have a monetary profit attached to them.

[Petrolheadia]

You didn't answer my question in the slightest. I asked for a concrete motive, and you gave me some vague claim that other motives exist, and that humans are a social species (even though introversion and even misandry are things) then act like I am unreasonable for suggesting that an economic system should have a concrete basis.

The fact that you can try and present to me a government-less economic system based entirely on abstract motives is either ultra-clueless or intellectually dishonest. It makes Authoritarian Socialism look reasonable in comparison; at least it has a concrete basis, which is a gun pointed at the people.

The concrete basis is the simple fucking fact of the matter that profits are not and never will be the primary motive behind human activity, for fuck sake. Suggesting otherwise flies in the face of all the psychological studies of human drive and motive and all sorts of other science behind the human condition and completely goes against what people actually do. Do you not have hobbies? Do you not do things as simple as cleaning dishes? Do you not feed yourself? Do you not attend school? I can't imagine you do, since none of those activities have a monetary profit attached to them.

I do all these things, but I do it for personal pleasure.

If you want me to perform a service to society outside telling people which car to buy, you need a motive. And profit is a versatile one.