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!!!!!

>>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.