Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Torrocca]

Someone clearly needs a much more in-depth look at examples of Anarchism in practice :^)

Care to give them? This is another thing amongst many that I have asked, and have never received an answer.

It's not like these things are a Google search away or anything. Oh, wait. They are.

1. Working for a CEO is also absolutely voluntary; every single transaction is voluntary.

Yes, oppressing the working class is absolutely a voluntary matter.

Also pushing the same, tired misunderstanding and portrayal of Capitalism as "duh korparashunz".

Kinda hard not to when they're prominent in practically every aspect of modern life. :^)

2. The point is that there is a selfish motive involved with altruism, even though it is also not a reliable one. In fact, regardless of motive, the reason why Capitalism works is because capital is a generic means to the end that is a personal motive.

3. Again, relying on altruism. If you want to see if your vision would work, maybe try assuming no altruism at all, as a pessimistic ideology will handle reality better than an optimistic one.

How many times do I have to type the word "mutualism" to get that fact through to you lot?

4. Wouldn't that just be a type of governance, then (a.k.a. the state)?

Anarchism is about self-governance and abolishing unjust hierarchies. "Rules, but not rulers."

[North Saitama]

Care to give them? This is another thing amongst many that I have asked, and have never received an answer.

1. It's not like these things are a Google search away or anything. Oh, wait. They are.

1. Working for a CEO is also absolutely voluntary; every single transaction is voluntary.

2. Yes, oppressing the working class is absolutely a voluntary matter.

Also pushing the same, tired misunderstanding and portrayal of Capitalism as "duh korparashunz".

3. Kinda hard not to when they're prominent in practically every aspect of modern life. :^)

2. The point is that there is a selfish motive involved with altruism, even though it is also not a reliable one. In fact, regardless of motive, the reason why Capitalism works is because capital is a generic means to the end that is a personal motive.

3. Again, relying on altruism. If you want to see if your vision would work, maybe try assuming no altruism at all, as a pessimistic ideology will handle reality better than an optimistic one.

4. How many times do I have to type the word "mutualism" to get that fact through to you lot?

4. Wouldn't that just be a type of governance, then (a.k.a. the state)?

5. Anarchism is about self-governance and abolishing unjust hierarchies. "Rules, but not rulers."

1. All of these also exist within existing states, most are just movements, and none are anywhere near the utopian society you present.

Besides, "Google it" is a lazy way of making me research your case for you.

2. As if the working class cannot choose their employer, or their career path? Working class people can even apprentice and learn skills from tradesmen. All you are doing is just presenting the same imaginary boundaries over and over.

3. CEOs are also not as powerful as portrayed, nor are they the sole employers in even today's existing society.

4. The bartering you suggest is also much less efficient than Capitalism, anyway. You are, at this point, trying to force an inefficient economic system, one that is outdated, upon a theoretical Anarchist society (which isn't even obligated to follow your ideology). At this point, you are more creating a fictional anarchist utopia than proposing anything realistic.

5. Anarchy (which Anarchism is derived from) literally means "stateless". What you are thinking of is Direct Democracy (like practised in Athens), which still carries the ability to be tyranny of the majority.


I swear, it is like I have said all of this, before. It is leading me to believe that you have learned nothing.

[Mattopilos II]

5. Anarchy (which Anarchism is derived from) literally means "stateless". What you are thinking of is Direct Democracy (like practised in Athens), which still carries the ability to be tyranny of the majority.

Anarchism is different than anarchy, as many an anarchist could tell you. anarchism is specifically for describing a political idea, while anarchy doesn't necessitate this.
Also, using what is more or less "let me translate this term and pretend this describes everything about it" on anarchy by saying it is "stateless" doesn't actually refute what Torrocca said. This would require going into a discussion on what a state even is. I for one like describing a state as a type of government, rather than thinking governance and statecraft are the same thing.

[Elwher]

Depends on the individual in question. If they're someone who physically or mentally can't provide for the community (like, say, a newborn infant)? It's more than likely they'll be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the community's labor except for in some weird, extremely fucked up situation that completely goes against any and all Anarchist principles. If otherwise, the right of the community as a whole would have precedence, and they'd ultimately decide the best course of action democratically. There's options there, in that case, beyond something extreme like disassociating from said freeloading individual or exiling them, such as incentivizing them one way or another to do labor.

Paying them wages in exchange for their labor is a time tested method of incentivizing them one way or another to do labor.

[Elwher]

Anarchism is about self-governance and abolishing unjust hierarchies. "Rules, but not rulers."

A totalitarian state is an unjust hierarchy. The fact that I choose to work for another person and take their orders, instead of starting my own business or working in a different company does not qualify as an unjust hierarchy, unless I am prevented from quitting.

Rules, but not rulers is a great slogan. Who makes the rules and how are they enforced, however, is a bit more complex and does not fit on a signboard.

[North Saitama]

5. Anarchy (which Anarchism is derived from) literally means "stateless". What you are thinking of is Direct Democracy (like practised in Athens), which still carries the ability to be tyranny of the majority.

1. Anarchism is different than anarchy, as many an anarchist could tell you. anarchism is specifically for describing a political idea, while anarchy doesn't necessitate this.
2. Also, using what is more or less "let me translate this term and pretend this describes everything about it" on anarchy by saying it is "stateless" doesn't actually refute what Torrocca said. 3. This would require going into a discussion on what a state even is. I for one like describing a state as a type of government, rather than thinking governance and statecraft are the same thing.

1. The term "Anarchism" is derived from "Anarchy", which I noted. And I only mentioned Anarchy in said context, to point out that it implies statelessness at its core. By the very basic definition, a society governed by a state cannot be counted as Anarchist.

2. It does, as Torrocca is advocating for Anarchism, but presenting a form of Statism. The implication is that an actual Anarchist society, at least by Torrocca's view, is so ineffective and unrealistic, that Torrocca is hiding Statism under the guise of Anarchism to answer our questions.

3. Merriam-Webster: State: 5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory especially : one that is sovereign

b : the political organization of such a body of people

c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character

By definition, Direct Democracy is a form of the State, and, thus, by definition, not Anarchism.

4. Before you ask why I am hammering Torrocca on ideological purity, it is because her view of an Anarchist society is so flawed, that she has to use Statism and mental gymnastics to organise her theoretical "Anarchist" state to fit her vision and even appear to work.

[Mattopilos II]

1. Anarchism is different than anarchy, as many an anarchist could tell you. anarchism is specifically for describing a political idea, while anarchy doesn't necessitate this.
2. Also, using what is more or less "let me translate this term and pretend this describes everything about it" on anarchy by saying it is "stateless" doesn't actually refute what Torrocca said. 3. This would require going into a discussion on what a state even is. I for one like describing a state as a type of government, rather than thinking governance and statecraft are the same thing.

1. The term "Anarchism" is derived from "Anarchy", which I noted. And I only mentioned Anarchy in said context, to point out that it implies statelessness at its core. By the very basic definition, a society governed by a state cannot be counted as Anarchist.

2. It does, as Torrocca is advocating for Anarchism, but presenting a form of Statism. The implication is that an actual Anarchist society, at least by Torrocca's view, is so ineffective and unrealistic, that Torrocca is hiding Statism under the guise of Anarchism to answer our questions.

3. Merriam-Webster: State: 5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory especially : one that is sovereign

b : the political organization of such a body of people

c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character

By definition, Direct Democracy is a form of the State, and, thus, by definition, not Anarchism.

4. Before you ask why I am hammering Torrocca on ideological purity, it is because her view of an Anarchist society is so flawed, that she has to use Statism and mental gymnastics to organise her theoretical "Anarchist" state to fit her vision and even appear to work.

1. I already addressed this.
2. She's presenting some form of collectivism. About as shit, and tends to degenerate into a state, sure.
3. Appeal to definition. I never actually expanded on what I meant by making the distinction, nor did I say Torrocca made that distinction. Note how vague the third definition is there... "a certain character"? So, it is distinct, therefore a state? It is different than people randomly gathering, therefore a state? It is very vague. b. is less vague, but same issue applies - anarchism doesn't imply no organisation, yet that doesn't mean it is a state. a. is honestly closer to a definition of a nation, not exactly the definition of state being debated here. I have made my point: just pulling up a dictionary doesn't work as an argument on its own, unless I or Torrocca themselves are applying the dictionary to make their points. I haven't followed the whole conversation, so I am not going to answer that for you.
4. anarcho-communism that festers in the same pool as MLs and Demsocs, statist? shocker

[Torrocca]

1. It's not like these things are a Google search away or anything. Oh, wait. They are.



2. Yes, oppressing the working class is absolutely a voluntary matter.



3. Kinda hard not to when they're prominent in practically every aspect of modern life. :^)



4. How many times do I have to type the word "mutualism" to get that fact through to you lot?



5. Anarchism is about self-governance and abolishing unjust hierarchies. "Rules, but not rulers."

1. All of these also exist within existing states, most are just movements, and none are anywhere near the utopian society you present.

Shifting goalposts is no good way to live life.

And I'm not presenting a fucking utopia, tyvm.

2. As if the working class cannot choose their employer, or their career path? Working class people can even apprentice and learn skills from tradesmen. All you are doing is just presenting the same imaginary boundaries over and over.

Choosing between oppressors is no choice at all.

3. CEOs are also not as powerful as portrayed, nor are they the sole employers in even today's existing society.

They're still tools of oppression for the working class.

4. The bartering you suggest is also much less efficient than Capitalism, anyway. You are, at this point, trying to force an inefficient economic system, one that is outdated, upon a theoretical Anarchist society (which isn't even obligated to follow your ideology). At this point, you are more creating a fictional anarchist utopia than proposing anything realistic.

Anarchism isn't about efficiency in the sense that Capitalism is I.E. producing the cheapest, most replaceable consumerist shit. It's about self-sufficiency, worker self-governance and the ownership of the means of production, and a destruction of unjust hierarchies. And, furthermore, it's not my personal ideology; it's the ideology of millions that've actually come to read and agree with the words written by people such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin, or Chomsky.

At least fucking read one damn book - from those four names or from others - on what you're arguing against before you ramble about, "muh inefficiencies!!1!" or whatever cliched argument of the day there is to be.

5. Anarchy (which Anarchism is derived from) literally means "stateless". What you are thinking of is Direct Democracy (like practised in Athens), which still carries the ability to be tyranny of the majority.

As evidenced by these two sentences, it's perfectly clear you've never read a single ounce of Anarchist literature, since practically every sort of Anarchist, from philosopher to believer, is fine with a voluntary form of democratic self-governance.

Here's a whole fucking online library of resources to fix your innane beliefs on this political ideology up.

I swear, it is like I have said all of this, before. It is leading me to believe that you have learned nothing.

What am I to bother learning from someone who doesn't even understand what they're arguing against?

Anarchism is about self-governance and abolishing unjust hierarchies. "Rules, but not rulers."

A totalitarian state is an unjust hierarchy. The fact that I choose to work for another person and take their orders, instead of starting my own business or working in a different company does not qualify as an unjust hierarchy, unless I am prevented from quitting.

See, I get what you're saying here. But consider this: for many people, perhaps even the majority of people, it's not a choice whether or not they'll be working for the profits of someone else. Businessmen profiting off the labor of others is what the unjust hierarchy is that Anarchists have issue with in regards to Capitalism. That's not the workers owning the fruits of their own labor, it's the businessmen owning it despite not being the laborers on the assembly lines, in the kitchens, or in the fields. The issue isn't that it's a choice that you can choose your boss, the issue is that the boss is primarily deriding wealth from what you produce with your labor. Why should that dynamic be an acceptable one, rather than the workers being their own bosses in a way most democratic?

Rules, but not rulers is a great slogan. Who makes the rules and how are they enforced, however, is a bit more complex and does not fit on a signboard.

It sure is more complex, but it's not hard to champion a pure, voluntary form of democracy.

[The Racist Ghost of John C Calhoun]

Can we agree that the Whig Party and Henry Clay are tyrannical statists?

[Petrolheadia]

1. All of these also exist within existing states, most are just movements, and none are anywhere near the utopian society you present.

Shifting goalposts is no good way to live life.

And I'm not presenting a fucking utopia, tyvm.

Well, you're presenting a world in which everyone will somehow work with no reward?

2. As if the working class cannot choose their employer, or their career path? Working class people can even apprentice and learn skills from tradesmen. All you are doing is just presenting the same imaginary boundaries over and over.

Choosing between oppressors is no choice at all.

Oppressors? That's a rather strong term for self-employed people.

3. CEOs are also not as powerful as portrayed, nor are they the sole employers in even today's existing society.

They're still tools of oppression for the working class.

Or simple tools of exchange of labor for money.

4. The bartering you suggest is also much less efficient than Capitalism, anyway. You are, at this point, trying to force an inefficient economic system, one that is outdated, upon a theoretical Anarchist society (which isn't even obligated to follow your ideology). At this point, you are more creating a fictional anarchist utopia than proposing anything realistic.

Anarchism isn't about efficiency in the sense that Capitalism is I.E. producing the cheapest, most replaceable consumerist shit. It's about self-sufficiency, worker self-governance and the ownership of the means of production, and a destruction of unjust hierarchies.

So slogans instead of actual development?

And, furthermore, it's not my personal ideology; it's the ideology of millions that've actually come to read and agree with the words written by people such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin, or Chomsky.

At least fucking read one damn book - from those four names or from others - on what you're arguing against before you ramble about, "muh inefficiencies!!1!" or whatever cliched argument of the day there is to be.

With how much we disagree with what you write, you'd have to be a mssive liar to misrepresent the ideology that much.

I swear, it is like I have said all of this, before. It is leading me to believe that you have learned nothing.

What am I to bother learning from someone who doesn't even understand what they're arguing against?

Then clear the misconceptions if you can.

A totalitarian state is an unjust hierarchy. The fact that I choose to work for another person and take their orders, instead of starting my own business or working in a different company does not qualify as an unjust hierarchy, unless I am prevented from quitting.

See, I get what you're saying here. But consider this: for many people, perhaps even the majority of people, it's not a choice whether or not they'll be working for the profits of someone else. Businessmen profiting off the labor of others is what the unjust hierarchy is that Anarchists have issue with in regards to Capitalism. That's not the workers owning the fruits of their own labor, it's the businessmen owning it despite not being the laborers on the assembly lines, in the kitchens, or in the fields. The issue isn't that it's a choice that you can choose your boss, the issue is that the boss is primarily deriding wealth from what you produce with your labor. Why should that dynamic be an acceptable one, rather than the workers being their own bosses in a way most democratic?

Becuse the bosses were the ones to spearhead the organization, and because self-employment and cooperative enterprise is a thing?

[Industrial Skyrim]

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

A fair comparison between the innovative capabilities of the nations that I named and socialists nations is like comparing a used Honda to a brand new Ferrari. Just as the Ferrari will leave the used Honda in the dust, free markets leave socialist economies in the dust when it comes to innovation.

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.

Thank goodness that these nations, which I presume are the ones that I named, have not tried socialism. They have enough problems with statism as it is, and socialism would only exasperate those problems while costing them their competitive economic edge. Also, as another poster has noted, appreciation alone is irrelevant. Science needs funding, and markets are efficient at creating that funding, or finding ways to market research to investors who provide funding with the promise of profit. In a socialist or otherwise highly statist nation, science and innovation are largely stagnant due to a lack of funds, either from a lack of private investment or from the deleterious effects that state management of the economy will have upon the national coffers. Yes, even state-funded science benefits from capitalism, since governments of capitalist nations generally have more tax revenue due to having access to more prosperous economies.

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.

Israel is in the Middle East, and is right in the middle of much of that turmoil. Yet, it's a world leader in innovation. Simply being in the Middle East does not guarantee that innovation will suffer. Iran's problem is not its geography, but rather the heavy management of it's economy by the government. Many industrial sectors are owned my military officials, including members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, who steadfastly block reforms and foreign investment in order to hold on to their monopolies.

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.

Generally speaking, things that are profitable are also useful to humanity. The private sector invests a lot into engineering, computing, medicine, agriculture, robotics, and aerospace out of the expectation of profit. Therefore, researching things solely because they are profitable is still a great service to mankind. Again, if you insist on your fetish for state-funded science, a profitable economy means more revenue for the government, which can be invested into research.

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

Not impossible, nonetheless, the market is more efficient at R&D than the government.

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.

You implied in an earlier post that I am morally deficient and suggested that I am ignorant. Given you insistence that the profit motivation is evil, in spite of empirical evidence that it is efficient at uplifting economies and improving the quality of life, I find that latter rather amusing.

[Firaxin]

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

A fair comparison between the innovative capabilities of the nations that I named and socialists nations is like comparing a used Honda to a brand new Ferrari. Just as the Ferrari will leave the used Honda in the dust, free markets leave socialist economies in the dust when it comes to innovation.

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.

Thank goodness that these nations, which I presume are the ones that I named, have not tried socialism. They have enough problems with statism as it is, and socialism would only exasperate those problems while costing them their competitive economic edge. Also, as another poster has noted, appreciation alone is irrelevant. Science needs funding, and markets are efficient at creating that funding, or finding ways to market research to investors who provide funding with the promise of profit. In a socialist or otherwise highly statist nation, science and innovation are largely stagnant due to a lack of funds, either from a lack of private investment or from the deleterious effects that state management of the economy will have upon the national coffers. Yes, even state-funded science benefits from capitalism, since governments of capitalist nations generally have more tax revenue due to having access to more prosperous economies.

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.

Israel is in the Middle East, and is right in the middle of much of that turmoil. Yet, it's a world leader in innovation. Simply being in the Middle East does not guarantee that innovation will suffer. Iran's problem is not its geography, but rather the heavy management of it's economy by the government. Many industrial sectors are owned my military officials, including members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, who steadfastly block reforms and foreign investment in order to hold on to their monopolies.

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.

Generally speaking, things that are profitable are also useful to humanity. The private sector invests a lot into engineering, computing, medicine, agriculture, robotics, and aerospace out of the expectation of profit. Therefore, researching things solely because they are profitable is still a great service to mankind. Again, if you insist on your fetish for state-funded science, a profitable economy means more revenue for the government, which can be invested into research.

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

Not impossible, nonetheless, the market is more efficient at R&D than the government.

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.

You implied that I am morally deficient and suggest that I am ignorant. Given you insistence that the profit motivation is evil, in spite of empirical evidence that it is efficient at uplifting economies and improving the quality of life, I find that latter rather amusing.

Damn, thought we were done and I could relax.

Except you don't know that because there is no fair comparison, I could say the same but vice versa, just because i said it doesn't mean it's true.

First, I'm glad they weren't fascist. That literally adds nothing to the conversation, I was saying that without immense American influence there would've been larger socialist movements that could've changed the country's position, and that the only reason there weren't any is because of propaganda, money, and fear. Second, you said that there could be no appreciation of science without a free market, I proved you wrong and you moved the goalpost. Finally, where has the money gone? Who took it? A strong state needs strong taxes in order to be strong in the first place. Are you telling me that with the tons of money they'll have they can't fund research? Sure they'll have less in the long run than a few capitalist nations, if they even still exist by the time a new revolution happens, but you can't lose resources unless they are taken or used, and America has enough resources to sustain research.

Israel is directly supported by the global hegemon along with several other countries, it would be impossible to reach its level of innovation if all that support suddenly packed their bags and left.

Ah yes, because researching psychology and gambling to get people to gamble more was definitely useful to humanity, or researching psychology and advertisements to see how to sell people on your product more. I don't have a fetish for state research, I have a burning passion to bring about the end to our natural inclination to sin, which would require the end of Capitalism. The best replacement for investors is the state, made up of the best of the collective.

Efficiency is not my primary concern. If it can still accelerate the advancement of mankind with every discovery and can create a fair and caring world for everyone, then it's good enough for me.

I did not imply you were morally deficient, I implied you were wrong. Efficiency does not equal good, and can, in fact, be bad.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Except that specific issue is easily fixable by such a society where everyone owns the means of production, because they can very simply work around those who refuse to partake in the goods of society. After all, Anarchism does abide by voluntary association, therefore it's not unreasonable to argue that those being selfish are choosing not to voluntarily associate with their community, and thus their community has no reason to voluntarily associate with them either.

Okay, then that logic leaves open the possiblity of the community not voluntarily associating with someone for petty reasons or for going against an orthodox or majority opinion or practice.

And, furthermore, Petro was pretty blatantly painting himself in a rather selfish light, as demonstrated here where he states his only possible motive for participating in society is monetary profit:

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.

[/quote]
I mean, he's not wrong. People won't fork over 8 hours of their day for no reason. They need to either enjoy it, get something out of it, or be coerced into doing it. The first option isn't sustainable as not enough people like bathroom cleaning and coal mining etc, and the second and third options don't seem to be compatible with left-anarchism.

[Petrolheadia]

A fair comparison between the innovative capabilities of the nations that I named and socialists nations is like comparing a used Honda to a brand new Ferrari. Just as the Ferrari will leave the used Honda in the dust, free markets leave socialist economies in the dust when it comes to innovation.


Thank goodness that these nations, which I presume are the ones that I named, have not tried socialism. They have enough problems with statism as it is, and socialism would only exasperate those problems while costing them their competitive economic edge. Also, as another poster has noted, appreciation alone is irrelevant. Science needs funding, and markets are efficient at creating that funding, or finding ways to market research to investors who provide funding with the promise of profit. In a socialist or otherwise highly statist nation, science and innovation are largely stagnant due to a lack of funds, either from a lack of private investment or from the deleterious effects that state management of the economy will have upon the national coffers. Yes, even state-funded science benefits from capitalism, since governments of capitalist nations generally have more tax revenue due to having access to more prosperous economies.


Israel is in the Middle East, and is right in the middle of much of that turmoil. Yet, it's a world leader in innovation. Simply being in the Middle East does not guarantee that innovation will suffer. Iran's problem is not its geography, but rather the heavy management of it's economy by the government. Many industrial sectors are owned my military officials, including members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, who steadfastly block reforms and foreign investment in order to hold on to their monopolies.


Generally speaking, things that are profitable are also useful to humanity. The private sector invests a lot into engineering, computing, medicine, agriculture, robotics, and aerospace out of the expectation of profit. Therefore, researching things solely because they are profitable is still a great service to mankind. Again, if you insist on your fetish for state-funded science, a profitable economy means more revenue for the government, which can be invested into research.


Not impossible, nonetheless, the market is more efficient at R&D than the government.

You implied that I am morally deficient and suggest that I am ignorant. Given you insistence that the profit motivation is evil, in spite of empirical evidence that it is efficient at uplifting economies and improving the quality of life, I find that latter rather amusing.

Damn, thought we were done and I could relax.

Except you don't know that because there is no fair comparison, I could say the same but vice versa, just because i said it doesn't mean it's true.[/quotep
There is a fair comparison, you're just obstructing it.

First, I'm glad they weren't fascist.

A thing we agree on.

That literally adds nothing to the conversation, I was saying that without immense American influence there would've been larger socialist movements that could've changed the country's position, and that the only reason there weren't any is because of propaganda, money, and fear.

Thanks God.

Second, you said that there could be no appreciation of science without a free market, I proved you wrong and you moved the goalpost.

Appreciation ain't worth shit when it doesn't transform into real innovation.

For example, in the time between the Lada classic series and its replacement's introduction, the original car, the Fiat 124, was succeeded twice.

Finally, where has the money gone? Who took it?

R&D spending.

A strong state needs strong taxes in order to be strong in the first place. Are you telling me that with the tons of money they'll have they can't fund research?

Once again, the Lada bullshit.

In the time of one Lada sedan/wagon, there was a twice-succeeded Fiat short/long-wheelbase sedan/wagon/coupe/convertible (and the coupe and convertible had own sheetmetal) that the Lada was a license version of.

Sure they'll have less in the long run than a few capitalist nations,

Defeat admitted.

Israel is directly supported by the global hegemon along with several other countries, it would be impossible to reach its level of innovation if all that support suddenly packed their bags and left.

That's a benefit of capitalism.

Ah yes, because researching psychology and gambling to get people to gamble more was definitely useful to humanity, or researching psychology and advertisements to see how to sell people on your product more.

It's useful to those who work in the casinos or related industries.

I don't have a fetish for state research, I have a burning passion to bring about the end to our natural inclination to sin, which would require the end of Capitalism.

Hell ain't a bad place to be.

Efficiency is not my primary concern. If it can still accelerate the advancement of mankind with every discovery and can create a fair and caring world for everyone, then it's good enough for me.

However, we don't stop at good enough.

[Elwher]

A totalitarian state is an unjust hierarchy. The fact that I choose to work for another person and take their orders, instead of starting my own business or working in a different company does not qualify as an unjust hierarchy, unless I am prevented from quitting.

See, I get what you're saying here. But consider this: for many people, perhaps even the majority of people, it's not a choice whether or not they'll be working for the profits of someone else. Businessmen profiting off the labor of others is what the unjust hierarchy is that Anarchists have issue with in regards to Capitalism. That's not the workers owning the fruits of their own labor, it's the businessmen owning it despite not being the laborers on the assembly lines, in the kitchens, or in the fields. The issue isn't that it's a choice that you can choose your boss, the issue is that the boss is primarily deriding wealth from what you produce with your labor. Why should that dynamic be an acceptable one, rather than the workers being their own bosses in a way most democratic?[/quote]

The boss is deriving wealth from what I produce with my labor. That is because first, the boss, or his predecessors, have changed what was a fallow piece of ground into a productive facility and second, because they are taking the economic risks associated with controlling said facility. If they cannot sell what I produce, I still get paid for my labor. They do not,however, make any profits.

I have no problem with the workers being their own bosses in a way most democratic. What I have a problem with is the outright theft involved with non-compensated confiscation of the means of production, either by violence or by legislation. If the workers want the factory, let them either buy it or build their own. There have been instances of both, and they have tended to be less efficient in producing and/or selling than hierarchal businesses. That does not mean that they shouldn't exist in the future, however.

[Industrial Skyrim]

Except you don't know that because there is no fair comparison, I could say the same but vice versa, just because i said it doesn't mean it's true.

Ah, you want nations with more comparable population sizes and less resources? Would that be fair? How about Israel, Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg and Estonia. Those places mostly don't even have natural resources, and some are even wealthier than the US, measured by GDP per capita. In all cases, they each boast a high standard of living, driven by market principles, far in excess of what is seen in socialist nations such as Venezuela, Cuba, or Laos. Are all noted for their innovative economies. Most of these nations are strong in terms of IT and some in high-end manufacturing, though their small sizes tends to result in them being overlooked.

First, I'm glad they weren't fascist. That literally adds nothing to the conversation, I was saying that without immense American influence there would've been larger socialist movements that could've changed the country's position, and that the only reason there weren't any is because of propaganda, money, and fear.

Israel originally had strong socialist leanings, being dominated by the leftist Mapai and Labor parties for most of its early history, but chronic economic underperformance led to reform. Meanwhile, Estonia broke free of the USSR, adopted free markets, and became an IT juggernaut, despite have a population of only a mere 1.5 million. In short, you overestimate the influence of the US. Both of the examples that I cited are nations have a history of leftist politics, and then drifted towards free markets without any sort of pressure from the US.

Second, you said that there could be no appreciation of science without a free market, I proved you wrong and you moved the goalpost.

No, I said that the appreciation of science without free markets is mostly useless. You didn't prove anything wrong. Your reading comprehension is apparently as good as your grasp of economics.

Finally, where has the money gone? Who took it? A strong state needs strong taxes in order to be strong in the first place. Are you telling me that with the tons of money they'll have they can't fund research? Sure they'll have less in the long run than a few capitalist nations, if they even still exist by the time a new revolution happens, but you can't lose resources unless they are taken or used, and America has enough resources to sustain research.

I said that governments of capitalist nations have a research advantage due to greater tax revenues from a more prosperous economy, relative to socialist economies. Your writing style is convoluted. You admitted to socialist nations having less funds, and then included a non sequitur about resources. Singapore is wealthier than the US, but has no natural resources. Meanwhile, Venezuela has many resources, but is devolving into failed state status. Resources are not any guarantee of innovation or prosperity.

Israel is directly supported by the global hegemon along with several other countries, it would be impossible to reach its level of innovation if all that support suddenly packed their bags and left.

Lots of poor nations in Latin America and Africa receive generous amounts of foreign aid from the US and other wealth donors, they they fail to match the success of Israel. The primary difference is Israel's preference for free market-centric policy since the 1980's, as well as it's highly entrepreneurial culture. Conversely, Switzerland, Ireland, Estonia, and Luxembourg have achieved great wealth, with high innovation and living standards, without any foreign aid.

Ah yes, because researching psychology and gambling to get people to gamble more was definitely useful to humanity, or researching psychology and advertisements to see how to sell people on your product more.

Profits made from retail and casinos result in more employment opportunities, and are invested into the stock market where they invested into other industries, which include IT, construction, medicine, engineering and other innovative fields. Also, retail often involves the sale of IT products, which again stimulates investment into innovative industries. In short, the retail and gambling industries are much more beneficial than you realize.

I don't have a fetish for state research, I have a burning passion to bring about the end to our natural inclination to sin, which would require the end of Capitalism. The best replacement for investors is the state, made up of the best of the collective.

Non-capitalist nations such as the USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue and Castro's Cuba are all guilty of great atrocities. Ending capitalism will not end sin. That last statement wasn't even an argument,though I will point out that without the profit motive or prices on a market, it will be difficult to evaluate the merits of individuals, let alone amass a collection of people who are "the best of the collective."

Efficiency is not my primary concern. If it can still accelerate the advancement of mankind with every discovery and can create a fair and caring world for everyone, then it's good enough for me.

India is a constitutionally socialist nation. While it was forced to open its economy in the early 1990's following a financial crisis, it retains many socialistic controls over its economy which block innovation and foreign investment in key sectors. This is most obvious in agriculture, which employs half of India's workforce. For comparison, less than 3% of the American workforce are employed in agriculture, yet the US is a leading exporter of produce. This is a result in differences in innovation, particularly automation. India's agricultural sector is highly labor-intensive, where people are literally using their hands to harvest produce. The US is capital-intensive, meaning that machinery and automation play a larger role in production, and that it's possible to produce more with a only a tiny workforce. This demonstrates the damage that socialist policies have upon innovation, which in this case have condemned millions of Indians to a life of hard labor.

I did not imply you were morally deficient, I implied you were wrong. Efficiency does not equal good, and can, in fact, be bad.

You said: "...You must enjoy the concept of the Purge. Pride and Greed are deadly sins, be careful to check your own beliefs often." You most certainly implied that I am morally deficient. But it makes no difference. To support a failed ideology such as socialism, even in the face of empirical evidence demonstrating the greater productivity and living standards of capitalist economies, that is wrong.

[North Saitama]

1. All of these also exist within existing states, most are just movements, and none are anywhere near the utopian society you present.

1. Shifting goalposts is no good way to live life.

2. And I'm not presenting a fucking utopia, tyvm.

2. As if the working class cannot choose their employer, or their career path? Working class people can even apprentice and learn skills from tradesmen. All you are doing is just presenting the same imaginary boundaries over and over.

3. Choosing between oppressors is no choice at all.

3. CEOs are also not as powerful as portrayed, nor are they the sole employers in even today's existing society.

4. They're still tools of oppression for the working class.

4. The bartering you suggest is also much less efficient than Capitalism, anyway. You are, at this point, trying to force an inefficient economic system, one that is outdated, upon a theoretical Anarchist society (which isn't even obligated to follow your ideology). At this point, you are more creating a fictional anarchist utopia than proposing anything realistic.

5. Anarchism isn't about efficiency in the sense that Capitalism is I.E. producing the cheapest, most replaceable consumerist shit. It's about self-sufficiency, worker self-governance and the ownership of the means of production, and a destruction of unjust hierarchies. And, furthermore, it's not my personal ideology; it's the ideology of millions that've actually come to read and agree with the words written by people such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin, or Chomsky.

At least fucking read one damn book - from those four names or from others - on what you're arguing against before you ramble about, "muh inefficiencies!!1!" or whatever cliched argument of the day there is to be.

5. Anarchy (which Anarchism is derived from) literally means "stateless". What you are thinking of is Direct Democracy (like practised in Athens), which still carries the ability to be tyranny of the majority.

6. As evidenced by these two sentences, it's perfectly clear you've never read a single ounce of Anarchist literature, since practically every sort of Anarchist, from philosopher to believer, is fine with a voluntary form of democratic self-governance.

Here's a whole fucking online library of resources to fix your innane beliefs on this political ideology up.

I swear, it is like I have said all of this, before. It is leading me to believe that you have learned nothing.

7. What am I to bother learning from someone who doesn't even understand what they're arguing against?

A totalitarian state is an unjust hierarchy. The fact that I choose to work for another person and take their orders, instead of starting my own business or working in a different company does not qualify as an unjust hierarchy, unless I am prevented from quitting.

8. See, I get what you're saying here. But consider this: for many people, perhaps even the majority of people, it's not a choice whether or not they'll be working for the profits of someone else. Businessmen profiting off the labor of others is what the unjust hierarchy is that Anarchists have issue with in regards to Capitalism. That's not the workers owning the fruits of their own labor, it's the businessmen owning it despite not being the laborers on the assembly lines, in the kitchens, or in the fields. The issue isn't that it's a choice that you can choose your boss, the issue is that the boss is primarily deriding wealth from what you produce with your labor. Why should that dynamic be an acceptable one, rather than the workers being their own bosses in a way most democratic?

Rules, but not rulers is a great slogan. Who makes the rules and how are they enforced, however, is a bit more complex and does not fit on a signboard.

9. It sure is more complex, but it's not hard to champion a pure, voluntary form of democracy.

1. It is not moving the goalposts. You presented non-examples, that have numerous large discrepancies from your case that they affect how they work.

2. You absolutely are; in any case where something can go wrong with the vision of Anarchism you are presenting, you flimsily explain how that can not be the case, or otherwise don't even answer. Sometimes, you even move the goalposts, yourself. All to avoid even so much as any negative whatsoever.

If your vision of an Anarchist society WASN'T a utopia, then what are possible downsides, and how would it handle them without either Anarchy or transforming into something else?

3. Um, self-employed people, the trades, owning a business? You are just repeating the same shit over and over, presenting the same, tired strawman of Capitalism over and over, even when it has been thoroughly refuted. You aren't even providing new arguments, just reusing the same ones that were already refuted.

4. Sure, because an object meant for voluntary exchange is "a tool of oppression"? At this point, you are just being contrary, and not actually making any point.

5. So you are just going to dismiss the idea of making people's lives better through economic efficiency? You would rather there be less food to go around for ideological reasons than accept Capitalism, even when your own preconception of Capitalism is almost entirely wrong?

6. What happens, though, if there is a tyranny of the majority? Already, it is clear to see that opinions vary, and that certain political positions tend to go together. What is to stop the majority opinion from oppressing the minority opinion?

At that point, your own expressed goals have failed, as now you have an unjust hierarchy. With that, what is to stop the majority class from voting for a much more defined State and oppressing the minority class with it?

7. The fact that you present ALL of the same strawmen of Capitalism over and over again begs otherwise. Besides, if you are constantly dropping debates and leaving questions unanswered on a regular basis, don't you think that there is actually a LOT that you are missing?

8. Have you ever considered that businessmen are actually buying the labour of their employees? They make money by owning the means of production, and buying the labour of people to run the machinery. And it is really no different from any other labour exchange. For example, if I hire a carpenter to build me a house, should the house automatically be his, simply because it is "the fruit of his labours"? Note that I don't even need intent to profit; I just want a house.

9. Except it is, as Democracy, at worst, is still tyranny of the majority. How do you safeguard against ways that the majority can suppress the minority?

[Northern Davincia]

Can we agree that the Whig Party and Henry Clay are tyrannical statists?

Bless the Whig Party.

[Firaxin]

Damn, thought we were done and I could relax.

Except you don't know that because there is no fair comparison, I could say the same but vice versa, just because i said it doesn't mean it's true.

There is a fair comparison, you're just obstructing it.

First, I'm glad they weren't fascist.

A thing we agree on.

That literally adds nothing to the conversation, I was saying that without immense American influence there would've been larger socialist movements that could've changed the country's position, and that the only reason there weren't any is because of propaganda, money, and fear.

Thanks God.

Second, you said that there could be no appreciation of science without a free market, I proved you wrong and you moved the goalpost.

Appreciation ain't worth shit when it doesn't transform into real innovation.

For example, in the time between the Lada classic series and its replacement's introduction, the original car, the Fiat 124, was succeeded twice.

Finally, where has the money gone? Who took it?

R&D spending.

A strong state needs strong taxes in order to be strong in the first place. Are you telling me that with the tons of money they'll have they can't fund research?

Once again, the Lada bullshit.

In the time of one Lada sedan/wagon, there was a twice-succeeded Fiat short/long-wheelbase sedan/wagon/coupe/convertible (and the coupe and convertible had own sheetmetal) that the Lada was a license version of.

Sure they'll have less in the long run than a few capitalist nations,

Defeat admitted.

Israel is directly supported by the global hegemon along with several other countries, it would be impossible to reach its level of innovation if all that support suddenly packed their bags and left.

That's a benefit of capitalism.

Ah yes, because researching psychology and gambling to get people to gamble more was definitely useful to humanity, or researching psychology and advertisements to see how to sell people on your product more.

It's useful to those who work in the casinos or related industries.

I don't have a fetish for state research, I have a burning passion to bring about the end to our natural inclination to sin, which would require the end of Capitalism.

Hell ain't a bad place to be.

Efficiency is not my primary concern. If it can still accelerate the advancement of mankind with every discovery and can create a fair and caring world for everyone, then it's good enough for me.

However, we don't stop at good enough.

It is not, and I will not accept it as one until it compares to the society I'm aiming for, which it cannot as no society has gotten there, and just because it hasn't gotten there does not mean it's impossible or improbable, at least not now, it was most likely impossible in the past.

I disagree, I would rather there be appreciation and no innovation, then neither. Neither leads to shit like anti-vaxxers, where as appreciation at least makes the populace reasonable.

I'm not into cars, so I honestly have no idea what you mean exactly.

I meant the money before it's spent that belongs to the state. He made it sound like they'd have no money to fund R&D, which is absurd.

I mean Patience and Humility are virtues, we'll have enough to live good lives, while our sacrifice of extra pleasures will help others live happily too. That is Victory, IMO, not defeat.

I'd say it's more a benefit of national cooperation.

And harmful to the people it targets.

Hell is literally the opposite of heaven. Imagine the most horrifying experience you could ever experience, Hell is that but so many magnitudes worse you literally cannot comprehend how tormenting it would be. If you were saying Capitalism is hell from my point of view, it isn't, and it'll never be that bad.

Of course, but sometimes "good enough" is the best option.

[Firaxin]

Except you don't know that because there is no fair comparison, I could say the same but vice versa, just because i said it doesn't mean it's true.

Ah, you want nations with more comparable population sizes and less resources? Would that be fair? How about Israel, Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg and Estonia. Those places mostly don't even have natural resources, and some are even wealthier than the US, measured by GDP per capita. In all cases, they each boast a high standard of living, driven by market principles, far in excess of what is seen in socialist nations such as Venezuela, Cuba, or Laos. Are all noted for their innovative economies. Most of these nations are strong in terms of IT and some in high-end manufacturing, though their small sizes tends to result in them being overlooked.

First, I'm glad they weren't fascist. That literally adds nothing to the conversation, I was saying that without immense American influence there would've been larger socialist movements that could've changed the country's position, and that the only reason there weren't any is because of propaganda, money, and fear.

Israel originally had strong socialist leanings, being dominated by the leftist Mapai and Labor parties for most of its early history, but chronic economic underperformance led to reform. Meanwhile, Estonia broke free of the USSR, adopted free markets, and became an IT juggernaut, despite have a population of only a mere 1.5 million. In short, you overestimate the influence of the US. Both of the examples that I cited are nations have a history of leftist politics, and then drifted towards free markets without any sort of pressure from the US.

Second, you said that there could be no appreciation of science without a free market, I proved you wrong and you moved the goalpost.

No, I said that the appreciation of science without free markets is mostly useless. You didn't prove anything wrong. Your reading comprehension is apparently as good as your grasp of economics.

Finally, where has the money gone? Who took it? A strong state needs strong taxes in order to be strong in the first place. Are you telling me that with the tons of money they'll have they can't fund research? Sure they'll have less in the long run than a few capitalist nations, if they even still exist by the time a new revolution happens, but you can't lose resources unless they are taken or used, and America has enough resources to sustain research.

I said that governments of capitalist nations have a research advantage due to greater tax revenues from a more prosperous economy, relative to socialist economies. Your writing style is convoluted. You admitted to socialist nations having less funds, and then included a non sequitur about resources. Singapore is wealthier than the US, but has no natural resources. Meanwhile, Venezuela has many resources, but is devolving into failed state status. Resources are not any guarantee of innovation or prosperity.

Israel is directly supported by the global hegemon along with several other countries, it would be impossible to reach its level of innovation if all that support suddenly packed their bags and left.

Lots of poor nations in Latin America and Africa receive generous amounts of foreign aid from the US and other wealth donors, they they fail to match the success of Israel. The primary difference is Israel's preference for free market-centric policy since the 1980's, as well as it's highly entrepreneurial culture. Conversely, Switzerland, Ireland, Estonia, and Luxembourg have achieved great wealth, with high innovation and living standards, without any foreign aid.

Ah yes, because researching psychology and gambling to get people to gamble more was definitely useful to humanity, or researching psychology and advertisements to see how to sell people on your product more.

Profits made from retail and casinos result in more employment opportunities, and are invested into the stock market where they invested into other industries, which include IT, construction, medicine, engineering and other innovative fields. Also, retail often involves the sale of IT products, which again stimulates investment into innovative industries. In short, the retail and gambling industries are much more beneficial than you realize.

I don't have a fetish for state research, I have a burning passion to bring about the end to our natural inclination to sin, which would require the end of Capitalism. The best replacement for investors is the state, made up of the best of the collective.

Non-capitalist nations such as the USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue and Castro's Cuba are all guilty of great atrocities. Ending capitalism will not end sin. That last statement wasn't even an argument,though I will point out that without the profit motive or prices on a market, it will be difficult to evaluate the merits of individuals, let alone amass a collection of people who are "the best of the collective."

Efficiency is not my primary concern. If it can still accelerate the advancement of mankind with every discovery and can create a fair and caring world for everyone, then it's good enough for me.

India is a constitutionally socialist nation. While it was forced to open its economy in the early 1990's following a financial crisis, it retains many socialistic controls over its economy which block innovation and foreign investment in key sectors. This is most obvious in agriculture, which employs half of India's workforce. For comparison, less than 3% of the American workforce are employed in agriculture, yet the US is a leading exporter of produce. This is a result in differences in innovation, particularly automation. India's agricultural sector is highly labor-intensive, where people are literally using their hands to harvest produce. The US is capital-intensive, meaning that machinery and automation play a larger role in production, and that it's possible to produce more with a only a tiny workforce. This demonstrates the damage that socialist policies have upon innovation, which in this case have condemned millions of Indians to a life of hard labor.

I did not imply you were morally deficient, I implied you were wrong. Efficiency does not equal good, and can, in fact, be bad.

You said: "...You must enjoy the concept of the Purge. Pride and Greed are deadly sins, be careful to check your own beliefs often." You most certainly implied that I am morally deficient. But it makes no difference. To support a failed ideology such as socialism, even in the face of empirical evidence demonstrating the greater productivity and living standards of capitalist economies, that is wrong.

Not the comparison I wanted either, also Venezuela is not socialist. A proper comparison could only be made right now with a fictional nation, but that would give an unfair advantage to the fictional nation because it is fiction, and perfectly ideal. I dont want a USSR or PRC, and I would never fight for one, their states were too unregulated even though they were given so much power leading to authoritarianism, plus, they were state atheist, and as a Catholic that is no good. Perhaps in a secular socialist state innovation would be higher than them, but we cannot know that because there are no major socialist nations that are secular.

Israel was influenced by the US and you're lying if you say otherwise, that isn't to say that they did not ultimately make the decision, but they were influenced to eventually lean another direction. Estonia was not influenced by the US but guess who they were influenced by? Oh right, the pretty authoritarian USSR. I wonder why they would ever develop a deep fear of Socialism and switch to Capitalism? /s Of course they boomed once the boot was lifted the talent could finally came out, and people could do far more than they could've done.

It seems you did, my mistake, but you insult me for a simple mistake? Remember the Golden Rule.

I would say they don't as they'll have to lower taxes to promote business growth, reducing their income, so they'd be in the same ballpark income wise. Next, I did not mean they would have less funding, rather they would have less advancement. The resources was related to the fact that if the US became socialist right now, it would have more than enough resources to perform any job we'd need it to, plus a little extra, implying it would be ridiculous to assume they could not. Venezuela is not socialist, why do you assume them to be?

That's because they are the nations where advancement has significantly slowed down due to massive interference from foreign powers, with regional instability thrown in, and the poorest countries in the world due to colonialism. Not to mention the problems left over from when different societies were forced together in Africa. Hell, most of them aren't even socialist and if they were I doubt the US government would financially support them. Of course they aren't doing well. The main difference is that Israel is a nation in close proximity to Europe, which was heavily invested in by world powers, and they want to make sure that all the investment wasn't for nothing and that Israel remains for the entire course of our lives. Plus Israel receives far more than just financial aid unlike most of the rest.

*Wage enslavement opportunities. What if that money was just spent on different industries directly and people couldn't harm themselves and others? Retail is not Marketing, retail can be innovative, retail can exist without Capitalism, Marketing acts against innovation, as a good innovative product would not need uber expensive Marketing, as word of mouth and basic marketing would be enough. You shouldn't have to be convinced to buy a product, you should just buy a product based on knowledge.

I never said getting rid of Capitalism would end sin, I said it would combat our natural inclination to sin. Capitalism encourages Greed because of the profit motive, Socialism encourages patience, charity, and kindness due to collectivism. No, it wasn't an argument alone, it was a claim that was a part of an argument, if the state is the best funded in place of investors then the state should logically be the funder when there are no investors. It would be difficult, but not impossible, and entirely worth it. It would have to be complex, and subject to change so that it performs as best possible. For example, someone who would sacrifice their life for another would be higher class than someone who would not. A program for this exact function should be good enough to determine the amount of personnel the government needs and what level of points in the system is the line of requirements, additionally it will always be perfectly logical according to the system and thus would have no bias.

India is not socialist, it is also not the global hegemon, the US is. As such I will not accept them as a fair comparison or example. Either way, hard labor is good so long as it is fair. If it is fair then they help themselves, and others and they should take joy in that, though it isn't likely fair.

A moral deficiency would mean you have a lack of morals, which I do not think is the case. Every man has morals, its one of the few things all of mankind shares. To say you had none would imply that you're inhuman. I would suppose you had interest in the Purge because of its focus on the murder of the poor, whom you said were lazy and undeserving of a better life. Now, I did not mean to say that you would actually murder poor people, but it's the kind of thinking that leads to a conclusion that murdering the poor is okay.

[The Liberated Territories]

What's so bad about "freeloaders" anyway? We have more resources than we can use and fewer jobs than people. The only way full employment could be achieved is if we made millions of people do a bullshit job like digging a hole and filling it back in.

Allow me to move in with you and we'll find out.

[Mattopilos II]

What's so bad about "freeloaders" anyway? We have more resources than we can use and fewer jobs than people. The only way full employment could be achieved is if we made millions of people do a bullshit job like digging a hole and filling it back in.

Allow me to move in with you and we'll find out.

Now if only the rest of what you say was supposed to be a joke :^)

[Saint Block]

Employment opportunity would be exponential in a free market society though.

[Industrial Skyrim]

Not the comparison I wanted either, also Venezuela is not socialist. A proper comparison could only be made right now with a fictional nation, but that would give an unfair advantage to the fictional nation because it is fiction, and perfectly ideal. I dont want a USSR or PRC, and I would never fight for one, their states were too unregulated even though they were given so much power leading to authoritarianism, plus, they were state atheist, and as a Catholic that is no good. Perhaps in a secular socialist state innovation would be higher than them, but we cannot know that because there are no major socialist nations that are secular.

The fact that it will take a fictional example to satisfy your need for fair comparison is as troubling as it is hilarious. I presume that you don't consider the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam or China to be true socialist nations. I suspect that this is either because they retain varying degrees of capitalism in their economies and/or have failed to achieve an equal or classless society. In any case, requiring a fictional example implies a complete disregard for empirical evidence and historical precedents. The fact true socialism has not been achieved raises many questions as to its feasibility in the real world. The fact that the ideological zealotry of so-call revolutionaries such as Lenin and Mao gave way to more pragmatic, market-centric policies of the NEP and Deng Xiaoping's reforms demonstrates the unfeasiblility of abandoning market principles. Classless equality is impossible to achieve because of vast differences in human ability, discipline and ambition. Someone who sucks at math will never be a rocket engineer, just as someone who is physically short will never be an NBA all-star.

Israel was influenced by the US and you're lying if you say otherwise, that isn't to say that they did not ultimately make the decision, but they were influenced to eventually lean another direction.

Have you studied Israeli politics at all? Free market policies became more prevalent after the election of the Likud Party, who where and still are the main opposition to the left-wing Labor Party. Likud first came into power with the election of Prime Minister Begin in 1977, one of the founders of Likud. This was a result of general public disillusionment with Israel's left-wing elites and the growth the religious Jewish community, not American influence. Pro-market reforms intensified in the 1980's with the goal of ending chronic economic recessions, combating unemployment and promoting the growth the IT sector, which Israel's government values for its military applications.

Estonia was not influenced by the US but guess who they were influenced by? Oh right, the pretty authoritarian USSR. I wonder why they would ever develop a deep fear of Socialism and switch to Capitalism? /s Of course they boomed once the boot was lifted the talent could finally came out, and people could do far more than they could've done.

Estonia is not the only post-communist success story. We also have Georgia and Poland, which have strong market tendencies. Meanwhile in Ukraine, the government continued to be managed by ex-communists, and as such it's economy never really recovered from it's post-communist hangover in the 1990s. Here we have evidence that US influence does not guarantee the adoption of capitalism, or the rejection of socialism, and that failure to adopt capitalism leads to poor economic performance.

It seems you did, my mistake, but you insult me for a simple mistake? Remember the Golden Rule.

One: I'm not Christian. Two: You advocate a philosophy that disregards private property and supports a system of institutionalized theft in the form of wealth redistribution. In short, cry me a river about the Golden Rule.

I would say they don't as they'll have to lower taxes to promote business growth, reducing their income, so they'd be in the same ballpark income wise. Next, I did not mean they would have less funding, rather they would have less advancement.

You're not considering the long-term. Low taxes mean more economic growth, which means more tax revenue in the future. It also means the growth of innovative industries such as IT and engineering, which can support government research initiatives by providing expertise and technology. The last statement is patently absurd, since the most advanced nations are all capitalist, with the exception of China.

The resources was related to the fact that if the US became socialist right now, it would have more than enough resources to perform any job we'd need it to, plus a little extra, implying it would be ridiculous to assume they could not. Venezuela is not socialist, why do you assume them to be?

Venezuela is a relevant example since they have many resources, yet fail to get any benefit from them due to poor management as a result of abandoning market principles. PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil monopoly, is in debt to the tune of over $90 billion due to the government taking most of the company's revenue. This leaves PDVSA unable to fund R&D, or purchase foreign technology and/or expertise, which is part of the cause of Venezuela's economic troubles. Venezuela's oil is what is known as "heavy oil," which is expensive to extract and requires more refinement than "light oil." This means that with poor R&D and no funds to purchase foreign tech, Venezuela simply cannot benefit from its oil in the face of heavy foreign competition. Meanwhile, the UAE is now among the top 10 of the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index. Their leaders know that they can't rely on oil forever, and their economy is shifting towards services, tourism, finance, shipping and even some manufacturing. Unlike Venezuela, the UAE is guided by market principles, and a future depletion of resources has ironically spurred growth in other sectors.

That's because they are the nations where advancement has significantly slowed down due to massive interference from foreign powers, with regional instability thrown in, and the poorest countries in the world due to colonialism. Not to mention the problems left over from when different societies were forced together in Africa. Hell, most of them aren't even socialist and if they were I doubt the US government would financially support them. Of course they aren't doing well.

The influence of foreign meddling and colonialism is overstated. South Korea was a victim of brutal Japanese colonialism, and was devastated during WW2 and the Korean War, yet is now a wealthy nation which boasts highly sophisticated technologies, all achieved within one generation. Hong Kong and Singapore were members of the British Empire, and were devastated by the Japanese in WW2, but are now extremely wealthy. Poland was a victim of brutal German and then Soviet colonialism during and after WW2, having a portion of its territory permanently taken away by the USSR. Now, Poland's economy is strong, and so much so that Poland was mostly unaffected by the Great Recession of 2008. A history of oppression, colonialism and foreign meddling does not guarantee poverty. The poverty of the Third World is the result of poor political decision-making, which have profoundly negative economic results. The inter-ethnic fighting in Africa predates the arrival of the Europeans, therefore it is ridiculous to blame colonialism for Africa's inter-ethnic troubles.

The main difference is that Israel is a nation in close proximity to Europe, which was heavily invested in by world powers, and they want to make sure that all the investment wasn't for nothing and that Israel remains for the entire course of our lives. Plus Israel receives far more than just financial aid unlike most of the rest.

Australia and New Zealand are very wealthy countries which are located in remote locations. Proximity is irrelevant. Israel received military aid in the form of outdated WW2 surplus and second hand European and American weapons in its early days, when it scored many of his key victories over its neighbors. Israel only started receiving substantial US financial assistance for its military in the 1980s. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear arms. US President Jimmy Carter once stated that he believed that Israel had between 80 to 300 nuclear warheads, meaning that Israel's nuclear program was perfected at some point prior to substantial US assistance in the 1980's. In short, Israel was able to achieve many great feats with relatively little aid, impressive for a country of their size. Israel to some degree repays US aid by sharing military intelligence and technology with the US.

*Wage enslavement opportunities. What if that money was just spent on different industries directly and people couldn't harm themselves and others?

Wage enslavement is an oxymoron, because wages are paid to workers in exchange for voluntary labor. Your argument is invalid. Banning gambling will only push gambling underground, creating lucrative business opportunities for organized crime.

Retail is not Marketing, retail can be innovative, retail can exist without Capitalism, Marketing acts against innovation, as a good innovative product would not need uber expensive Marketing, as word of mouth and basic marketing would be enough. You shouldn't have to be convinced to buy a product, you should just buy a product based on knowledge.

The USSR attempted to have retail without capitalism, and the result was chronic shortages of goods. Under capitalism, prices rise as as supply drops in the face of high consumption. This causes people to simply buy less of a good due to the higher prices. Without capitalism, prices generally remain constant, meaning that demand remains the same even in the face of low supply, leading to chronic shortages of goods. Marketing is a simple way of informing people of the existence of a product. Word of mouth would limit knowledge of a product to a small population of buyers and those they associate with, while marketing can potentially reach millions of people. Therefore it is obvious why companies invest in marketing. Actually, marketing frequently results in innovation in the forms of online streaming, apps on phones, and associated networking and computing technologies. Marketing often attracts customers to IT products, which stimulates profits for IT firms and again stimulates innovation in the IT sector.

I never said getting rid of Capitalism would end sin, I said it would combat our natural inclination to sin. Capitalism encourages Greed because of the profit motive, Socialism encourages patience, charity, and kindness due to collectivism.

If sin is indeed a natural inclination, then it is inherent to human nature and no economic system will combat it. Socialism is inherently greedy, as it implies that people are entitled to a good living whether or not they contribute any sort of productivity to society. That implies that the productive are essentially enslaved to the unproductive. That is certainly not charitable or kind. The fact that socialism enables such exploitation on the part of the unproductive, rather than encouraging the long-term cultivation of discipline and work ethic, implies a disregard for patience.

No, it wasn't an argument alone, it was a claim that was a part of an argument, if the state is the best funded in place of investors then the state should logically be the funder when there are no investors. It would be difficult, but not impossible, and entirely worth it. It would have to be complex, and subject to change so that it performs as best possible. For example, someone who would sacrifice their life for another would be higher class than someone who would not. A program for this exact function should be good enough to determine the amount of personnel the government needs and what level of points in the system is the line of requirements, additionally it will always be perfectly logical according to the system and thus would have no bias.

There is a vast body of empirical evidence which demonstrates that the state is inefficient, and is often biased by political considerations and ideology. Therefore, to trust the state to impartially and effectively judge the merits of individuals is illogical. The fact that you consider human sacrifice virtuous is quite troubling.

India is not socialist, it is also not the global hegemon, the US is. As such I will not accept them as a fair comparison or example. Either way, hard labor is good so long as it is fair. If it is fair then they help themselves, and others and they should take joy in that, though it isn't likely fair.

India is socialist. Socialism been written into their constitution since 1976, and was effectively policy since it's independence, much to the detriment of its economy and quality of life. Hard labor is not good when technological alternatives exist. Mechanization and automation reduce hazards, improve working conditions and increase the skill, and therefore pay, of the workforce. They also increase overall production, which in the context of agriculture and medicine imply profound benefits to the population for reasons that are all too obvious. You apparently prefer hard labor and starvation to the improvement of the quality of life.

A moral deficiency would mean you have a lack of morals, which I do not think is the case. Every man has morals, its one of the few things all of mankind shares. To say you had none would imply that you're inhuman. I would suppose you had interest in the Purge because of its focus on the murder of the poor, whom you said were lazy and undeserving of a better life. Now, I did not mean to say that you would actually murder poor people, but it's the kind of thinking that leads to a conclusion that murdering the poor is okay.

Assuming that all humans are moral is patently absurd. How do you account for Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Charles Manson? To say that not supporting socialism or at least welfare programs leads to wanting to kill the poor is a non sequitur. Lots of people oppose socialism and welfare, but very few are guilty of actively attacking or killing the poor.

[The Liberated Territories]

r/libertarian rn is a flaming dumpster fire. No longer a bastion of free speech, agree with the mods or you will be b a n n e d