Communism

All the people I've seen who they say support communism live in 4 bedroom houses, buy lots of communist memorabalia at Hot Topic, and bitch about life. In communism your ass has to work for 12 hours with or without consent and you live in shitty ass houses. I get it, people only say they support communism when they get to be the ones in charge who sit on their ass doing nothing, because remember THEY'RE THE PROLETARIAT!!!!!

All the people I've seen who they say support capitalism live in 4 bedroom houses, buy lots of capitalist memorabalia at Tiffanys, and bitch about taxes. In capitalism your ass has to work for 18 hours without consent and you live in shitty ass houses. I get it, people only say they support capitalism when they get to be the ones in charge who sit on their ass doing nothing, because remember THEY'RE THE BURGEOUISE!!!!!

Any economic system is only as good as the resources that drive it and the government that oversees it.

>>3
that sentence only makes sence if your 14 and retarded. gb2 introductory economics

>>4
f'real (not the same person)

Don't give me that economics shit. That supply and demand shit is a charade. Prices are set on whatever the companies feel like setting them at. The USA can be a trillion dollars in debt, won't make any difference. Inflation doesn't mean anything. The USA can just print money out of thin air and inflation will never happen because the spirit of the money is too strong.

have you ever lived under communism? its hell, i have family form the ussr.

Marx's only struggle in life was to keep up a perception of deceit!

My family is from poland and finland, and ive been to east germany a lot as a kid. Hell it was not. It wasnt that good either, but at least there were no homelesness, no starvation, no crazy christians in power, free education for everybody, decent pensions, free public transportation for the elderly etc. Its not like that anymore in either russia, poland or east germany and a lot of people (=not rich people) are nostalgic because they feel that thay had it better. Are they wrong?  

That wasn't even true communism anyway.

>>9 Those are small aspects of an entire situation, and that is now. Back then disillusionment and envy of the west was what caused the communist bloc to give up - although some cunnilinguists give credit to Saint Rayguns insane administration.

Thank you Mikhail Gorbachev for what you done.

I love Mikhail Gorbachec, Kruschev, Stalin and Lenin. I love them all! I would suck on any of their stankholes if I had the chance, just so long as I don't actually have to live in Russia or any state which implements the ideals I love so much for that matter.

Communism is a noble ideal but it can't be implemented.  We need to stick to Democratic Socialism.

>>14

no, we have to get rid of all liberals then problem solved

Yes. We must get rid of the liberals. Disproving liberalism to 300 million people will be quite a task since it is so staunch full of fallacies, but if every non-liberal convinces at least 1 person that liberalism is nonsense in their life time it is possible.

>>16
200 million is my estimate of the total world population of liberals, I was not referring to the population of the USA.

300 million*

>>16
>>17
>>18
Since the post he was referring to mentioned Democratic Socialism I think it’s safe to assume >>15 was talking about liberals in the European since, aka classical liberalism or libertarianism

>>19
Liberals in europe are just like liberals in the US.

>>20

but where they are, in the US, on the left wing of the scale, they are on the right in europe

>>21
No they aren't.

>>22
What the fuck? I live in Europe and here liberals are right wing and kinda like what you call libertarians in US.

>>20
+
>>22
=
fail

>>23
They aren't. They are all socialists. In the UK "libertarianism" is a word rarely heard.

Well in sweden liberals are right winged cunning linguists who wants da sekret polizei to surveilence schoolkids for suspicious behaviour like listening to rock music, wearing a turban, smoking, reading anything other than Ayn Rand and not being able to speak whitout an accent. And as far as i know, thats like an amerikan leftist position, whereas the amerikkan right wants to hang strange fruits in trees in guantanamo or abu ghraib. And swedish liberals fucking hate socialism more than hitler (this is true).

>>25
That maybe in UK, but here in Finland liberals are right wing and close what Americans call libertarians. They really dislike left wing and socialism.

Here in Sparta are librarians on the left wing.

Classical liberalism is free-market, small government, essentially what we in the US call a "Libertarian".

Leftist liberalism is socialist, big government, nanny-state.

Any future posts please distinguish between these two types of liberalism, as there's a big difference between them.

My understanding is the european "liberals" are more like classical liberals than leftist liberals. But I haven't been to europe so my understanding is subject to being vastly incorrect.

>>29
No, you are wrong. Leftist liberals (what we at least in sweden call social liberals, i e Rawlsian liberals) are right wing compared to socialists. Socialists define society through class relationships, distribution of ownership and power, liberals through individual rights. Socialists agenda are the abolishment of class society and therefore capitalism, while liberals believe that this world is the best possible world and it should only so slightly modified, but never radically changed (at least thats what they have told me when i have asked them) which mean i guess, that they have no agenda except conservation of the status quo, as long as this status quo does not violate any indivudual right.  

Eezh. Replace "Leftist liberalism" with "the American idea of the left, as characterized by Democrats", for clarity. Sorry for the confusion. This topic always confuses vocabularies.

Most communist supporters are fat asses. I suppose it's because they're hard workers.

>>32
Most capitalist supporters are stupid as fuck. I guess its because their reading material is so eclectic.

Most capitalist supporters are not stupid as fuck. The stupid fucks are the socialists and commies. There's probably a causal relationship here.

>>34
How many capitalist supporters have read Marx? How many communist supporters have read Adam Smith? The ratio is not one, i assure you. Googling for "leftist intellectuals" leads to 23 300 hits while "rightist intellectuals" yields 109 hits. And yes, there is a causal relationship here, but not the one you´d want.

Capitalism isn't rightist. It's just not leftist. Libertarians and Republicans agree on something, that doesn't mean it's a right-wing thing. Libertarians and leftists agree on some things also, those things cannot be considered exclusively leftist. A google search for "libertarian intellecutals" yeilds 437,000 hits. Stick that up your ass.

I'm a capitalist and I've read the Communist Manifesto. I haven't read Das Kapital as I haven't found a free version of it as I have the Manifesto and various free-market economics books, but I've heard numerous of the ideas contained within.

From what I've read of Marx, I think he misidentified the oppressor class. It's not the owners of the means of production that are exploiting, it's the owners of the means of destruction (the government). The bigtime capitalists happen to be in bed with the government, so while some of the big businessmen are certainly bad, they aren't bad as a class of people. Agorist class theory (http://www.agorism.info/AgoristClassTheory.pdf) is demonstrably superior to Marxist class theory as illustrated in the PDF I just linked to.

>>35
I used to be quite a liberal, but after reading the communist manifesto I edged towards libertarianism. I still hold the same anti-tyranny feelings as any other liberal, except I am not a fucking idiot.

>>36
"Libertarian intellecutals" yields 0 hits
"libertarian intellectuals" yields 1 830 hits.
leftist intellectuals (without the "") yields 751 000 hits. How does it feel to be assraped?

Capitalism is not rightist, but capitalist generally support are.  Libertarianism is just a joke that nobody in their right mind takes seriously, its like the utopians of old, making up there own perfect clockwork societies that would be perfect if it werent for this or that.
And as gift from me to you, a cookie: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA.html

>>38
So you believe freedom from rule by despotism, freedom of speech and human rights are "a joke that nobody in their right mind takes seriously, its like the utopians of old, making up there own perfect clockwork societies that would be perfect if it werent for this or that."

You know what. Fuck you. LIBERTY OR DEATH!!!

>>35
The relationship is that leftist like to feel superior about themselves and will constantly tell you what great minds they have. It doesn't surprise me that there are 23,300 hits for "leftist intellectual", if all I did was run around talking about how smart I was compared to everyone else then I'm bound to produce a lot more hits on google than somebody who actually accomplishes something intelligent without trying to brag about it.

>>39
All that is allready given by liberalism. Wait, i invented retardism, which proposes that all humans are created equal, dictatorship should be abolished and that nobody has the right to kill their fellow man. Wanna join?

>>40
Oh yeah, thats right, capitalist supporters are smarter because we  cant proove they are smarter, while any indication of otherwise is just leftist elitism. Well, you shouldnt brag about how stupid you are either so shut up.

>>41
It's given by liberalism + a load of bullshit that would never work that is placed above core and absolutely necessary values.

If anyone has an IQ of over 90 they tend to come up with this equation in less than 3 seconds. It may take a little longer for someone with downs syndrome, but they get there eventually. You know they're not stupid they just take longer. Liberals are the ones who are truly stupid.

liberalism - bullshit = libertarianism

I'll go with libertarianism. Thx.

>>42
Oh i see. Any examples? Because as i see it
libertarianism=mad russian anticommunism+weak grasp on contemporary philosophy+naive worldview+whatever sounds good

And saying that people who arent libertarians have an IQ below 90 seems a bit elitist to me.

Studies show that approximately  94% of all the people in your country think that communism is the same as Stalinism. And those are two very different things.

>>43
Communism is tyranny, even socialists agree with this. Inherantly Libertarians must be anti-communist unless it conflicts with the core libertarian principles, since it is those principles which give reason to oppose communism.

The last useful philosopher was John Stewart Mill.

It is not naive to think that we must never put aside human rights. It is naive to think that if we put aside human rights, just this once, just for this group, just for that group aswell and so on that you will be create a utopia. It is naive to think Rome can be built in a day and the legitimate, very important and functional philosophies of libertarianism should be discarded because some dodgy marxist derived ideology "claims" it can create a utopia in 1 bloody revolution.

>>45
I am socialist, and i dont agree that communism is tyranny. What you are actually thinking of is either bolshevism, marxism-leninism, stalinism, maoism or maybe whatever they call that shit they have in north korea. When you say communism=tyranny, you are just saying that "as a libertarian i cant be bothered to actually check up on the ideologies my own sect are opposed".
You must be a scholar on philosophy then, if you have read all the philosophic works post Mill and found it lacking. Because i know that not even you could be so stupid to claim that and not be able to back it up.
Human rights are great. But its naive to think that just because we fulfill a arbitrary set of rules, there will be no oppresion, no exploitation and no tyrrany. If you dont consider the economic facts of a society you will never change society in any progressive way.
And just for the record, libertarianism fails on its own merits, its got nothing to do with marxism or anything else.

>>46
"But its naive to think that just because we fulfill a arbitrary set of rules, there will be no oppresion, no exploitation and no tyrrany."
Don't be silly. That's what I've just told you.

The thing is libertarianism is essentially just anti-tyranny, it isn't an ideology like socialism, it is a science and to dismiss it is to remove the safeguards against tyranny. As difficult and slow as it is to implement libertarian principles, libertarianism is the only way to eliminate tyranny and must always be placed above mere ideologies so the safeguards against tyranny. For how can you expect to implement your ideals if they are under the heal of a tyrant?

Russia 1920
Peasant: This man disagrees with Equality.
Commissar: Execute him.
Peasant: What about his right to the freedom of speech?
Commissar: Equality is more important.

USA 1776
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: This man disagrees with the freedom of speech.
Propogandist: Execute him.
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: What about his right to the freedom of speech?
Propogandist: Freedom of speech is more important.
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: Wut. My respect for your authority has rapidly diminished and I shall no longer take orders from you.
Propogandist: Execute yourself.
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: No...

>>47
Lenin might have killed about 5 million when he took the power in Russia, probably more after that. The objectives for every single one of them I don't know.
But I do know that most he killed was to distribute the food they had in there possesion.
By killing 5 million Lenin saved 20 million.

>>48
As you probably guess I don't believe that, but even if it is true Lenin's disrespect for human rights led to Stalinism and a stagnant totalitarianism that only showed the first signs of evolving towards a libertarian government during the mid 60s. I doubt he needed to kill them, he could have just confiscated their food. The only killing that was needed was to cripple the tsarist military so they stop oppressing people.

>>49
I doubt he needed to kill them too. I'm not defending him for that, but that he killed those people are only half the truth.
Also the 1919 Russia was a very different world from today.

>>47
Rights are all good and dandy, but what use are they, if there is still no right for the starving to have bread, for the homeless to have a home, for the poor to be rich. Your rights are arbitrary, and they do not change the structural reasons why people starve or why they are poor, and therefore are the winners of your world the same people who are the winners today. And since you dont realise this you are naive. And intelligent design is more like a science than libertarianism, at least it accepts that the world has progressed since the days of Mill.

>>48 Those 20 million - would they really have died without the food? It doesn't really make sense that depriving five million people of adequate nourishment would have kept 20 million from starvation.

>>51

You have every negative right. You have no positive rights.

When Libertarians and Republicans talk about the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", we aren't talking about making sure absolutely everyone can get free guns from a government-regulated system. We mean nobody can take your guns. That's a negative right. It's something nobody should be able to stop you from doing.

When Liberals talk about the "Right to have a home", you aren't trying to protect the institution of home ownership, you're trying to force everyone to pay the rent of a bunch of other people. That is a positive right. It's something that everyone has to take positive action to provide you.

The rights to "Life, Liberty, and Property", are not rights where you are provided with things. It means nobody can kill you. It means nobody can enslave you (subject you to involuntary servitude of any kind). It means nobody can steal your property. It does not mean society owes you life and free healthcare to stay alive. It does not mean society owes you their own useful time. It does not mean that if you lack property, someone somewhere must provide you with property.

Libertarians believe you have every negative right and no positive rights.

There are rights for the starving to have bread, for the homeless to have a home, for the poor to be rich. Anyone who steals the bread of a starving man, prevents a homeless man from buying a house or renting an aparment, or steals property from the poor and prevents them from becoming rich, those people are damned criminals.

But society does not owe you bread just because you are starving, it does not owe you a home because you have none, it does not owe you money because you lack money.

Don't confuse these. Libetarian rights are not arbitrary.

>>53

People should be given what they need in order to live. Outside of that they don't deserve a cent, but we deprive a lot of people the ability to live if we don't grant them it ourselves.

And why do they deserve that? No one ever asked to be born. No one ever had a choice in at least that much. So give them at least that much; give them life, because surely, had they known what was in store for them, they would have never decided to be born in the first place. So give them life.

94% of my "people" don't even know who Stalin is. Yet somehow they graduate and become "successful".

What's wrong with having kings? I wouldn't mind a guy in a throne telling me what to do.

No they shouldn't. They should earn what they need in order to live. If they can't even scrounge up enough wild plants to keep themselves alive, we don't need to be keeping them alive, they're either disfunctional or they don't want to live badly enough.

Sure, give them all the money you have. Just don't steal my money to give it to them. If I thought it was worth it, I'd be giving them that stuff too.

Aside from all that, we don't give them just what they need in order to live. If you're good at getting bang for your buck, you can live on under a dollar a day. I'm sure renters would even offer space for a few dollars a week if property taxes didn't force them to charge more. At least for a short time while the renter looked for a job. Or if the renter did some stuff for the landlord.

But people don't deserve things just for existing. If they didn't want to be born they can undo it by killing themselves. If they want to keep living, they should at least work enough to put food in their own mouth.

>>57

Evidence in the real world are contrary to what you suggest. There are lots of people that want to keep living but even then they are starving, and its not because they can't get work. In any case, we're driving toward a world which no longer needs a working class thanks to technology, so what do we do with people who can't do what they CAN do for money, because they are no longer needed?

>>58
"and its not because they can't get work."

Er, I mean it IS because they can't get work. Or the wages they get aren't livable.

>>58
Human wants are insatiable. Once we get everything we thought we wanted, we want something else. Thus, labor demanded is infinite. We still have unemployment because of minimum wages, tariffs, and other regulation that prevents a lot of people that want jobs from getting jobs, and because of a lack of a system where finding a job is as easy as shopping at Walmart. Which might have to do with the government paperwork involved.

Machines and technology are tools. They do not replace people. They just make people's jobs easier. We do still need a working class. As long as the output of machines is below the output demanded, there will be labor. Because the amount demanded is unlimited, the output of machines will never go above the output demanded. Therefore, the working class is not going anywhere.

>>58
>>60 = truth

Also capitalism under democracy favours the high gdp per capita rather than the highest total gdp, since people generally want to be as rich as possible once gdp per capita begins to decrease due to overpopulation, the cost of raising a child will cause population growth to halt. This is inherantly humane since it means that people are not seen as tools, but rather the sentient beings that matter that they are.

>>53
Lol negative rights ,i was waiting for this.
Traffic lights are an infraction on your negative rights, are they not. Meaning, you have the right to draive anywhere whenever you want, and by regulating how and when you do that you lower the ammount of liberty a person has, yes? This is how negative rights work, and i assume as you said that humans have ALL negative rights and NONE positive rights and therefore are libertarian righs not arbitrary.
Well, Pyongyang (north koreas capital) have few traffic lights while london has many. So according to the scientific libertarian north korea has more liberty than the UK?

>>62
Well seeing as the government kinda owns the roads, they can rightfully set the rules on those roads. Nobody forces you to drive on the roads. Whoever's property you are on or you are using, you have to respect THEIR wishes in order to not violate their negative right to property. Traffic lights are not a violation of negative rights, but an example of them. Your last question is illogical.

>>63
Wait what? So if you are in a concentration camp you have to respect the wishes of the kommendant, and that is an example of negaitve rights? The governement can be said to own a country and its money among many things, and that taxes are the rent we pay to stay on its property and to use its money. If we dont like it, we can always move somewhere where its not liek that. Is this how you percieve negative rights? That taxes are an example of negative rights? That sounds really libertarian...

>>60
Horseshit human desires are insatiable.  You're making an arbitrary philosophical assumption then trying to create a cause and effect chain.

Here is proof that human desires are satiable: Marijuana + Full Freezer and a Microwave, pure fucking bliss.

And YES, the working class is getting edged out by technology, can you tell me how many cars the Ford company made in 1940 with  how many cars Ford makes today, and the difference of the number of blue-collar workers?  We will always have need of people to troubleshoot and fix the machines, but that requires education that many blue-collar families don't have the money to invest into.

>>60
When you get a job as an underpriviledged, uneducated black woman from Liberia, then come back and tell me about government red-tape being more of a factor in getting a job than environmental factors.

>>64
No, because if you're in a concentration camp, they're violating your negative rights. If you are free to leave the concentration camp, but you are staying by your own choice, you have to obey their rules. If you are forced there and not permitted to leave, then you're under no obligation to obey.

The government doesn't own a country. It claims territory, but a government doesn't own everything in that territory, even if it thinks it does.

Taxes are not an expression of property rights. They're a violation of property rights.

If you'd like to stop deliberately perverting the idea maybe you'd realize that it makes sense.

>>65
Human wants are insatiable. Once you run out of marijuana, frozen stuff, and a microwave, you want more.

No the working class is not being edged out by technology. Hiring someone doesn't require a capital investment while technology does. If you need something done now, and it's possible for the thing to be automated, you might have to pass up the automation simply because you can't afford to automate it when hiring someone is cheaper. A $20,000 machine might be more expensive than a $25,000 per year employee if you don't have the $20,000 or if you can't afford to pay the interest on a loan for that amount, and for every second you have nothing being done, be it by man or machine, you're losing money, you'll take whatever is closest and requires least up-front capital.

There will always always always be a place for the working class.

As the general standard of living rises with automation, the products that are made become easier and easier to purchase, requiring less and less work. Work still has to be done, it's just that very little work has to be done. This especially helps the poor who now have the work less to maintain a standard of living.

I can't become an underpriviledged uneducated black woman from Liberia, but what I can do is start a business in Liberia that'll try to hire that underpriviledged uneducated black woman. And if the government red-tape prevents me from doing so, then that's just about the next best thing after what you said. After all, the only thing left to do is find such a woman, tell her I want to hire her for such and such wages, but the governent is making it impossible for me to do so, and find a way for her to communicate to you her frustration.

I think there will be an apolcalyptic war between the masses and the elite, because money and power is getting concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and power is becoming increasing centralized in unaccountable organizations.

I think the elite will erode the borders between sovereign independent nation states, until the only borders that exists will be the borders around their super rich gated communties policed by private security guards, whilst the masses live in squalor and the "middle class" will cease to exist it will only be the elite and masses, the rulers and the ruled.

Eventually the elite will use their money to build a army of robots or genetically modified human clones, or cyborgs because the masses will become revolutionary and the masses don't need the elite but the elite need the masses to work for them but when they have robots or clones or cyborgs to do their work for them they will try to destroy the rest of humanity in an apocalpytic nuclear war in which billions will die.

Libertarianism will always fail because it just leads to a super rich elite breaking away from the rest of society, causing the masses to become revolutionary. I think dear comrade Castro of Cuba and dear comrade Kim Jong Il of North Korea are shining the light of hope in a dark world ruled by Zionists and Krazy KKKhristians, I agree that North Korea and Cuba are not perfect societies, but I bet that anyone could walk down a street anywhere in N. Korea or Cuba any time of the day or night without fear of being attacked, also the only place where Christians and Muslims lived in peace with each other was the Soviet Union, today Kazahkstan and Albania has about 50%/50% Christians and Muslims and they live together peacefully having grown up as brothers and sisters under communism. Black and White people live together in peace in Cuba and N. Korea doesn't have any racism or anti-semitism at all.

The capitalist media only focus on bad parts of communism, instead of focus on good things like working together, sharing each others lives, helping each other, in capitalist countries there is a lot of loneliness and depression and capitalist countries now have really low birthrates and are becoming extinct because the cost of living is too high, so the only solution is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

All countries like Belarus, Libya, Syria, Turkmenistan, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and the Iraqi Resistance are standing up to the capitalist empire and stopping power and wealth being taken from their people and centralized into fewer and fewer hands until a tiny elite rules the entire world and everyone else is reduced to being slaves or killed and replaced with robots/clones/cyborgs.

>>67
You shit communist manifestos.

The whole concept of libertarianism is to make unproven assumptions, then draw logical conclusions from the assumption, then keep everyone focused on the logical conclusions, and when anyone points out that they've made an assumption they claim the assumption as reality by constantly claiming the effects prove the cause. 
This would be considered poor scientific method, but they will dogmatically refute that their interpretation is unfounded. It has a striking similarity of the origin of Marx's ideas, he interpreted history as being driven by the nebulous "bourgeois oppression", then made logical predictions of the reprecussions.  Libertarians have their own interpretation of history, but instead of the bourgeois they have the nebulous "government causes absolutely everything bad, markets never fail". 
When confronted with the Gilded Age, they remark, "Government made those workers suffer and cause the great depression", which, considering the wide variety of opinions about the gilded age and the Crash of 29', sounds much like a child saying "Because I said so".
Interpretation of history is not a legitimate basis for grounding an assumption, you need controlled, purposeful empirical data before you can claim to be a seer. But you may continue to insist that Libertarian ideas are not in any way dangerously unproven, we look all too ready for another social experiment, Communism must've cost close to a  quarter billion human lives, maybe Libertarianism can break that record.

>>69
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that libertarians don't have proof to back up their assertions.

Libertarianism tolerates communism, communism doesn't tolerate libertarianism. Communism has such a high body count because it's intolerant and violent. Libertarianism is tolerant and nonviolent.

Libertarians won't kill in the name of Libertarianism.
Communists will kill in the name of Communism.

Libetarianism, by it's ethics, couldn't have a death toll because murder is one of the foci of what Libertarianism aims to stop.

>>69
I won’t even touch you comments on the crash of 29 because you must have very little information on it if you this it was a free market problem. But as far as your comment on poor working conditions goes; who was it again that improved working conditions? O that’s right labor unions and NOT the government.

>>71
Libertarians tend to use violence to defend their and other people's freedom from despotic rule.

>>73

lol guns for everyone! that will stop murder!

>>73

They tend not to, but tend to talk big like they do.

>>74

Sure would. Who would try to kill someone else if everybody else can shoot back? It'd be damned stupid.

>>75
They tend not to fight for other people's freedom, even more so if they are in a nother country. Though is due more to not interfering with other nation's sovereignty etc..

You can be sure that if a despotism arises in Switzerland or the US, 99% of insurgents would be libertarians.

>>75

A lot of people. You seem to be under the impression that a majority of people are logical, rational creatures.

>>77

They're not THAT stupid.

>>78

You haven't been to the south, have you?

>>79
I live in Fort Myers Florida dumbass. This is as southern as it gets. If you go farther south into Miami you have culturally left the south.

>>74 The fact that capitalist countries need laws protecting freedom of speech and gun ownership is proof that capitalism endangers these freedoms, otherwise they would not need protecting.

I am left wing but I fully support gun ownership, the problem is when the masses become so poor they cannot even afford to buy enough guns and enough ammunition to actaully fight back against tanks, airstrikes and other forms of violence used by oppressive tyrannical governments.

>>81
The fact that socialist countries have laws prohibiting freedom of speech and gun ownership is proof that socialism endangers these freedoms, otherwise they'd still have them.

If you can't afford guns, you can't afford food. Seriously, guns are easy to make and improvise if you understand the basic operating principles. Look up some stuff on improvised or expedient firearms and you'll see that anyone that can put together a computer or diagnose car trouble can put together a gun. Gimme a month, a mill, some metal, and some money, and I'll make you a machinegun.

An SKS is like $100 and a shoestring will make it full-auto. I work part time for minimum wage and even I can afford that.

>>40
QFT. Liberals are smug motherfuckers.. Everytime they parrot some irrelevant dogma we've already heard 500 times they lift their heads up close their eyes and breathe in through their nose. Why is this? Do they actually think they've made a point? I believe this unusual body language is a symptom of excessive marijuana use.

>>38

"Leftist Intellectuals" = 58000
"Libertarian Intellectuals" = 1920
"Rightist Intellectuals" = 324

Leftist Intellectuals = 755,000
Libertarian Intellectuals = 438,000
Rightist Intellectuals = 131,000

How the hell did you get "Libertarian intellectuals" to yeild zero hits? What engine?

Even rightists don't support capitalism. They just say they do. They support corporate statism.

Libertarianism is serious business. Defamation of libertarianism doesn't make it any less valid. Socialism is long-refuted idiocy, conservatism is an irrational obsession with tradition. Notice I didn't refute anything? I haven't made socialism or conservatism any less valid by saying that.

>>83 has amazing powers of observation.

>>84
Well, if reading comprehension is a libertarian virtue, i would assume you failed.
 
From >>38
""Libertarian intellecutals" yields 0 hits
"libertarian intellectuals" yields 1 830 hits."
Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone who claims all socialists are lazy retards and then cant be bothered to spell intellectuals correctly.
I have no interest in refuting libertarianism (as i cant be bothered to refute every voodoo theory out there), but let me ask you this.
How did you decide you where a libertarian? Did you do comprehensive research into all the major poliical philosophies  and their respective histories, comparing the validity between them? Or did you watch Bullshit and thought that Penn & Teller were so cool that they had to be right? Or where you a created a stormy night in the Cato Institute, when an unfortunate accident happened to knock over a vial of Denial into the vat of Dangerous Stupidity?

I didn't do comprehensive research, but I looked a little bit into everything I'd ever heard of. Despite being raised Christian, I looked into the Church of Satan, . Despite being raised by Republican parents, I looked into socialism a bit. I even looked into nudism just for the hell of it (it stuck). So I tried a little bit of everything before I found libertariansim, and I'm still open to other things, if someone could refute the basic assumptions of libertarianism, I'd ditch it and look for something else, but so far, I haven't seen anyone do that.

>>87
Sometimes tyranny works. So we should permit people to stamp on our face in the hope that one day a nice dictator comes along.

>>86
Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone Intellecutals is a clever way of mocking someone

>>88

Then why shouldn't I call myself a dictator and confiscate all your property and make it my own? Tyranny works for me, does it work for you?

And it wasn't me that called socialists lazy retards. That was someone else.

>>90
I dont think tyranny works, as little as i think capitalism work. And by work i mean ensure the longterm survival of the human species. Bartering and slavery works in the short run of a couple of centuries. It is only the abolishment of all ailments to all humanity that will guarantee everlasting sustainability, and by ailments i mean real ailments like starvation and homelessness, not arbitrary rights infractions like "TAX IS THEFT LOL".
But libertarianism, thats just idiocy.

>>83
I am sick of this blanket generalization bullshit about liberals. Every ideology has its retards. I bet you hate it when people say "lol republicans are racist homophobia fascist warmongering nazis because g dubya is an idiot". The neocons are your retards, the smug communist San Fransisco hippies are our retards. And believe me, I hate them as much as, if not more than you do.

>>92
Actually.... I enjoy it! As criticism can only do good. Ho ho ho, indeedly doodly indeed racist homophobia fascist warmongering nazis are idiots. Hahah hohoho. Tee hee!

>>91

No. Just no.

1. Tyranny doesn't work. Capitalism is the opposite of tyranny.

2. Technically the abolition (abolishment isn't a word) of all ailments to a small portion of humanity will guarantee sustainability of the human species.

3. Your idea of an ailment is arbitrary. Something that is wrong or disfunctional will die without being forced to die and if not deliberately sustained. Letting nature do as nature does is not wrong. It's merely accepting reality for what it is.

4. Taxation is theft. If I threaten you for your wallet on the street, I'm stealing from you. If I threaten you for your paycheck or I'll throw you in a cage for a year, I'm stealing from  you. That afterwards I give you can of beer or provide police protection and roads does not make it no longer theft. If so, muggers need only carry around a six pack of beer and give their victims a free can of beer to justify their actions. Taxation is not payment for services rendered anymore than a mugger giving you a free beer is an example of you buying a beer.

>>94

Tyranny is a political system of domination.  Capitalism is an economic system of property ownership.  They are on completely different axes.

Abolition of all ailments to a small portion of humanity....What is this, the justification of an all powerful elite? Frankly, the human race will continue to survive thanks to the people who suffer ailments already, we don't need cushy pampered elites to guarantee the survival of the species.

Calling something an ailment is arbitrary, you assuming that it is bad is another arbitrary label, assuming that bad things will die is an arbitrary assumption.  Letting nature do as nature does is not wrong, but as human beings we don't necessarily agree with nature.

Taxation is a contractual agreement, if you don't like squatting in a nation enjoying the security of a cohesive society, you can leave and be as untaxed as you want.

>>95

Since one of the jobs of the political system is to regulate the economic system, they are not completely seperate.

I was not trying to justify an all powerful elite at all. I was just saying, technically, it only takes one fertile male and one fertile female to maintain the human race. It doesn't take keeping all people healthy. Humanity will go on with very very few people also. I don't believe in an all powerful elite either, I was just pointing out how stupid your statement was. I don't believe we need to sustain an elite, or that we need to sustain everybody equally. I believe I need to sustain myself.

Ailments are bad by definition. That's what makes them ailments. That bad things will die is a proven fact. Insolvent business goes bankrupt. Genetic makeups incompatible with life don't make it to life in the first place. The fit survive, the unfit die. It's common sense.

As human beings we can choose to disagree with it, but that doesn't mean we can do anything about it. We can at best delay the inevitable and fool ourselves. We are part of nature, we have to live with it.

Please find the contract I signed that made me liable for taxes. Contracts signed under threat of violence are invalid. Contracts signed before being old enough to sign are invalid. Contracts not written down are invalid. Residence is not evidence of consent.

>>96
If they are not completely seperate, then they cant be completely opposite. And frankly, there have been many capitalist countries with tyranny. Eg Chile during Pinochet, Britain during colonialism etc.
The unfit does not die. You want proof? Go look in a mirror.
Well, if you use the roads, the internet and satelite TV you are enjoying the fruits of your taxes, and that can be seen as consent, as you are not forced to do this. Maybe that could be a nice agorist activity, boycotting theft-funded services. That would really give a clear signal to those in power and help the agorist movement. So you start and get of my internet.
Btw the contract were written by the founding fathers and is stored in the centre of teh Pentagon, guarded by viligantly Yog Sothoth.

>>97
There have also been socialist countries with tyranny. And there have been socialist countries which are libert...wait, no there haven't. Oh well.

I use free things because they're free. The government does not own the internet. It is not funded by taxes. Using something someone is giving away is not consent to pay for it. They're going to make me pay for it whether I use it or not, I might as well use it.

Agorism isn't so much about boycotting all tax-funded services as replacing them. Not using them as much as practically possible is part of it. It would be unfair, since we don't pay taxes. Since the government owns the roads, agorists can't very well not use the roads which the government built and provides for what appears to be free to it's users.

Communism for faggots

>>98
But you know its not free, that you paid for it by taxes. Your argument is childish. You say tax is theft, but you use taxfunded stuff and percieve them as free. Well okay. In the store they have all this free stuff that you can take. But then by the door they have a thief behind a cashregister that takes your money. This thievery must stop because it violoates my basic rights to go into store and get free stuff!!! Next time i will bring my shotgun and say that she can take my money from my cold dead fingers! BLAM!

>>100

They are "free" because they have no price. Not because they have no cost. Stuff on a store shelf has a price. Road use does not have a price tag.

>>101
The only difference is the ammount of time between when the service is provided and when the cost was exacted, and in what order. The roads have no price tags but you are fully aware that you have paid for them. Its like paying for a gymcard or whatever. Or what, do you mean that everything that doesnt have a pricetag is free?

There is no PRICE for roads. There is a cost. There is no price. I am not using free to imply that they cost nothing to make and maintain, I mean I can use them all I want and I'm not charged according to how much I use the roads. I'm charged according to how much money I make and how much gas I use. I am not charged for road use. Thus, roads are free in that they have no price. If I make no income and run a diesel off of veggie oil, I won't be paying a dime for my use of the roads. The roads have no price for use. That's what I meant when I said "free".

>>103
Yeah, and if i buy a gymcard that allows me to use the gym for a year i am not charged according to how much i use the gym. So the gym is free? I mean, the only thing you object here is the method of how you pay for the road, that this method but not the others is somehow a violation of your rights. If so, is your liberty increased if all roads have tolls instead?

When you pay for the gym card, you are paying the PRICE for the use of the gym.

When you pay for the roads, you are not paying for the use of the road. You are paying for puchasing gas and for making money. The money may be going to pay for the road, but this isn't relevant to pricing. Prices are how people make rational economic decisions.

>>105
But you rationally know that the tax is paying for the road! And the difference is still just a question of timing, is it not? So, you honestly think that liberty is increased if all roads had tolls on them? All parks should have tolls also? Because rational economic decision is what liberty is all about or what?

>>106

It doesn't matter that I know that the tax is paying for the road. I'm not paying for the road, I'm either paying for gasoline or I'm paying for some bureaucrats to leave me alone. That they eventually channel the money to the road is irrelevant, because I'm not buying road use.

Liberty might not necessarily be increased, a corresponding reduction in taxation would improve it. Then it's less theft.

Rational economic decision is a consequence of liberty. If you give people liberty, they'll make rational economic decisions. They can't do it without liberty. I was just throwing out a utilitarian arguement.

>>107
Okay, but i still fail to see the difference. If i pay an health insurance i dont know exactly what i am paying for, if the company i work for divert some of my wages into this health insurance without my consent (because they want healthy workers), i dont even have control over it. But are they stealing from me? What i am saying is, there seems to be at least a couple of instances that comes close to the same method of payment as taxes, and without the help of government, so either they are also theft or there is something besides the method that makes it theft.
Yeah, but assume that they privatize the roads, sold them to the highest bidder, because they need the taxes to fight North Iranizuela that has launched an invasion or whatever. So no tax decrease but now tolls on the roads. You are now able to make rational economic decisions, but you are also poorer. Is liberty increased for you as an individual (i guess it is increased for the companies that bought the roads)? 

If you give people liberty, they'll make rational economic decisions.
Gyahahahahahahahahahahaha

Why does the advertising industry resort to sex and success to sell things then?

>>109
A rational decision by the people graced with liberty in the advertising industry.

What, and everyone else isn't graced with liberty? Consumers are hoi polloi, somehow different?

I hope you're being facetious. People clearly don't make rational economic decisions. The reason Madison Avenue resorts to Pavlovian product and sex/success/whatever associations is because it moves products.

Yeah, buying that beer is going to get you a cheerleader. Drink up, chump.