Fuck Capitalism

Capitalism, capitalism. How do I loath thee? Let me count the ways….

Few would argue with the conclusion that greed, selfishness, ruthlessness, and egocentrism are qualities that all of us humans possess, to varying degrees of course. Equally compelling is the argument that nearly all of us are capable of acting with kindness, compassion, justice, honesty, generosity, and empathy. Yet despite the sweeping epidemic of unnecessary suffering caused by torrential waves of avarice, self-centeredness, and brutality, our filthy moneyed elite, their well-compensated sycophants, and countless millions of deeply inculcated members of the working class defend the sacred cow of capitalism with the zeal of the Sicarii. What a brilliant way to conduct human affairs and organize ourselves socioeconomically! Not only do we embrace the inevitability of our human frailties; we willfully and perpetually embrace a system that ensures that the worst elements of the human psyche will predominate AND which amply rewards those who act the most reprehensibly.

One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it's time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don't engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the way in which capitalism's relentless advocates have managed to bamboozle billions of people into equating it with democracy. Diabolical to its core, but sheer genius nonetheless. Concluding that capitalism and democracy are somehow synonymous is a bit like saying that Dick Cheney and the milk of human kindness relate to one another in even a very remote fashion. (Have you seen the myriad pictures of his evil grimaces floating around the Internet? Despicable creature that he is, he doesn't even attempt to mask his malevolence). Capitalism is naturally hierarchical, authoritarian, and brutal. Corporations, the legal vehicles for the plutocracy to maximize their profits while minimizing liability, are structured as tyrannies. What the hell is democratic about dog eat dog, law of the jungle, and every man for himself? Besides, if we uber-capitalists here in the United States are truly "democratic," and we "elected" a depraved idiot like W. to what is ostensibly the most powerful position in the world, what does that say about us?

wow no one has ever blamed everything on capitalism before, you're so edgy

>>2
Wow no one has ever blamed everything on socialism before, you're so edgy.

>>3
Meh all won't never acquit nothing above the state of being anti-social and non-partisan afterwards, I am not very drôle.

I don't think that either Capitalism or socialism by themselves will solve our problems.  The genius of Capitalism is that by and large Capitalism goes hand in hand with innovation.  The socialist economic system doesn't encourage invention in the same way.  Norway and Sweden don't produce new and improved anything.  They didn't invent cellular technology and certainly didn't put them into the hands of even the poorest people on the planet.  Socialism does lower the inequality of rich and poor -- it's a fundemental trade off though -- less growth, fewer innovations, and much more stability.  That's Norway on a stick.  Not much of a growing economy, but no one starves.  In Capitalism, the winners and losers are farther apart, but the system produces more in the way of economic growth and new solutions to old problems. 

Capitalism gave us the computer age, the automobile, cell phones, and jet airplanes.  Socialism gave us a national health plan, Social Security, Welfare, and a stable society.

Communism as Marx imagine it is the only solution.
Socialism is not communism as in real communism there is no money.

posting on an image board that would not exist without capitalism


just sayin

>>6
Hah. Good one. However, Communism is always a good punchline to a joke.

>>1
Your post is so full of retardation i cant even begin to understand where you would get such ideas....oh wait you are a sociology major arent you?

Oh and when i refer to "capitalism" i mean a FREE MARKET with no STATE CONTROLS whatsoever, what we have here today in the US is not CAPITALISM but a quasi form of it more properly called CORPORATISM where big buisnesses deal with politicians of the STATE to put up barriers for entry so that they can dominate the market and abuse their oligopoly position.

People love to equate CAPITALISM and CORPORATISM so much because they never take the time to understand it and just decide to hate all forms of markets. Or if people do understand the difference they argue that it would lead to corporatism anyways.

I would never put democracy and free markets in the same category because democracy is the majority imposing their PREFERENCES on the minority and the minority having to pay for the enforcement of the majorities preferences. Democracy is "mob absolutism" its not civilized it is barbaric and brutal.
Democracy is not sustainable, there will be people that "exploit" it.

"Similarly, if some company proclaimed itself the creator, interpreter and enforcer of law, taxes, prisons, defense, regulations, and managed the elections, we would call this company psychotic and pay them no mind. But when the company called “The United States Federal Government” does this, then it’s not only okay but a somber service crucial to civilization itself. And of course companies that are connected to the state can engage in arbitrary actions as well. Sometimes even more arbitrary because they don’t even have to deal with the rather limited regulation that elections sometimes provide. So a company keeps plugging candidates that run, keep giving them money, and lose because of it. Then the company pays the next candidate, and does this over and over, and everyone gets butthurt over this lulzy exploit hack of democracy. I think it’s funny, though statism is kind of a joke to me at this point, and democracy a children’s game. Arbitrary meaning disconnected from the demands of society, which is to say statism is antisocial."

Free markets at least let people choose whether they want to interact with it or not, democracy forces the minority to abide by the majority's choice and sustain it as well.

>>9
links to vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqVo9DivUbA&feature=related
(That Ol' Democracy Shtick!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eNrfDFFvME
(Why Democracy Fails)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAOjAhwJvWQ
(Democracy is Mob Absolutism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVD_Z2-Czg
(Anti Statism at light speed part 1)

Hooray for bullshit pathos.  And hooray for plagiarism. 

Let me ask you--what's wrong with the ability of people to trade with one another without restriction?  What makes you think that you are entitled to what you haven't earned?  What makes you think that somehow the same "worst elements of the human psyche" are those who produce a product that wouldn't survive without patronage, rather than the elected officials who would enforce the rules of your government of "far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles".

Principles aren't enforced at the point of a gun.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't charity.  The fact that you think that life is some kind of a video game where you get to pick where the resources go is ridiculous.  People either succeed because they are damn good at what they do--or because they have friends in government.  And your solution is to give more power to government?  And don't tell me "there is no government".  Who stops the shopkeeper from opening up shop?

The success of your neighbor doesn't prohibit you from succeeding.  Your victim mentality does.

I don't even know why I've responded to this.  This essay is a gut-wrenching vacuum of any semblance of economic understanding, and has all the angst one expects of a spoiled teenager.

>>10
Democracy works when authority does not extend beyond consent.

>>12
Consent of whom? the majority?
Sure it can "work" but i don't think its sustainable in the long run.
Democracy is basically "soft" communism because the underlying assumption of communism is that things are communally owned and can be "voted" on.
The US has fulfilled the 10 planks of the communist party to some extent so it wouldn't be to far as to say the US communist to some degree, although most "left" winged people still are upset that corporatism still exists.

Now if you mean breaking consent by constitution then all i can say is that i never agreed to the "constitution" and the constitution gives unlimited power to the federal government because it is not precise on how it is defined and because of that people who define it a certain way are no different than those who define it a different way.

*US is communist*

Fixing: US is corporate communist

Capitalism now exists in a deep container of pure fuck.

The free market works. Life goes on.

>>13
Consent of whom?
Individuals.


I'm sure you realize that living with other people means that you have to make compromises and that the point is to analyze whether compromises are justified. The idea that only those affected by a communal decision should have a say is a pretty straightforward concept that springs from this, so someone on the other side of the country has no say about issues that they are not affected by, like a local trash disposal ordinance in your area, but they do have a say if the issue affects both of you, like national traffic laws. Any practicalities of this can just be factored in as administrative efficiency, for the same reason society assumes everyone consents to free speech protected by the constitution society has reason to centralize things like railway gauges because the expense of holding a referendum on every tiny little technical detail in every county would exceed any benefits.

If you were rich, you wouldn't be complaining.

And also, wordiness cannot fix the crying shame of our country.  Caping the president's ass can!!! >8

>>18
You don't get me, democracy is a specific type of system where any majority can impose their preference on others. I understand that compromises may need to be made but that should be the individual's choice to make not the society's. Now this is different from an intersubjective consensus where people would only support things they had to pay without the support/subsidizing and diffusing costs of enforcing said things.
Lets take the drug war, lets say 60% of a society support a "drug war" and 40% either oppose it or don't care.
Under a democracy the "drug war" would be implemented and sustained by 100% of society being taxed for it.
Under a intersubjective consensus the 60% would also have to pay the 40%s share of the costs thus skyrocketing the price for enforcement of each individual and probably leading to further abandonment of paying the drug war thus leading to even higher prices for people to pay for enforcement until it can not be sustained anymore.

Centralization can happen in a free market as i would assume all credit card companies would have the same card size and shoe companies have the same shoe sizes.

Also i dont "have" to make compromises although they might be in my best interest but i should be free to associate with who i wish or not at all.

>>21
Serious question. (And answer honestly please.) How old are you?

>>22
20

>>23
You do know that the US has a constitution and checks and balances to make sure that things don't get too out of hand, right? It somehow is also able to function even during these Orwellian PATRIOT ACT times. Did you not have social studies class in fourth grade or something?

Where's the word capitalism in the US Constitution again? I see the words "union" and "welfare" though.

>>25
"Union" and "welfare" had different meanings back in the 18^th century, though.

>>24
Because those checks and balances prevented unnecessary wars, bailouts, most victimless crimes from being implemented, forcing people to pay for things they dont want and much more fuckups.

I did have a class in social studies in 4th grade in fact i excelled at it because i used to see war as any indoctrinated child would; A RIGHTEOUS CRUSADE TO STOP TYRANNY WHILE WE TYRANNIZE TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL!!! With me only focusing on the former.

The part where we differ is that i grew up and saw the inherent inconsistencies of its vagueness that give it unlimited power.
If you want to call me young? Fine but discrediting what people say due to their age sounds like the same type of tactics people faced when trying to advocate atheism, and look where it is now.

>>27
Because those checks and balances prevented unnecessary wars, bailouts, most victimless crimes from being implemented, forcing people to pay for things they dont want and much more fuckups.
This is an aspect of not having a more democratic way of dealing with such things. That's not from any failure of checks and balances, nor the constitution itself (though, the "Necessary and Proper" clause should probably be amended or removed completely with a constitutional amendment, since it seems to be used as a lazy way of declaring something legally constitutional without much effort). Implementing the National Initiative reforms (http://ni4d.us/) would be a real nice step forward as well.
The people in the US (like yourself) seem to have this idea that "Hey, since things aren't working as they should, I'll just swing all the way down the slippery slope and advocate "antistatism", "libertarianism", "anarchism", etc." Now they have two problems.

>>21
Under that arrangement freeloaders will just vote no to everything to avoid paying tax and the burden of maintaining society would fall on the best people in society, obviously this would cause some complications, I'm sure there are some situations where it is the best system but then there are some situations where regular democracy is best. Your argument would be far more compelling if it were directed at proving that certain things we take for granted as practical necessities are in fact not necessary at all and only perpetuated by politicians as being so, whilst at the same time confirming that certain things are necessary and the environment the system is in, I like to consider myself open minded and I agree that cannabis should be legalized and treated similar to alcohol but when this is combined with throwing away democracy like a baby with the bathwater it doesn't really help communicate things.

You don't have to make compromises but you do if you want to live and cooperate with other people, the idea I mentioned would not completely eliminate tyranny of the majority but it would reduce it, you would be able to move to an area where the local government has legalized cannabis if it meant that much to you. Obviously further analysis is required, I'm not trying to prove anything here just trying to elaborate on the situation a bit more, at the moment I have 2 perspectives on "what is best" being a practical minded perspective which accepts that I cannot make sense of the world and so should do what seems outwardly reasonable and secondly a theoretical perspective where I'm trying to piece together what I can and deduce what is best based on my model of the real world. You seem to have taken the theoretical route too far and failed to factor in your own limitations.

>>29
The free rider problem is too complex to discuss here, but there are many theories on how it can be solved from ostracism to forcing people out of the society. The "love it or leave it" argument does work in a stateless society because the legitimacy of the ownership is almost not arbitrary at all, homesteading, i would think, would be a standard or one of the standards on whether people deem your ownership as legitimate.

Im not saying we can/should eliminate the "tyranny of the majority", all im saying is that democracy SWELLS that power and the best way to limit it would be stateless societies.

There are some examples of stateless societies so its not as theoretical as you think but if you desire heavy duty empiricism then for the most part you will not find it but answer me this: Did we have government before religion and ideologies were implemented?

>>28
This is an aspect of not having a more democratic way of dealing with such things.
That's the problem, it depends on a "democratic" method so it can work, the problem is that the people in power have no incentive to abide by the rules so your "system" has an exploit where people can lie, cheat, and steal after they have attained power, sure they cant go too far but as long as its behind closed doors their power is limitless.

The people in the US (like yourself) seem to have this idea that "Hey, since things aren't working as they should, I'll just swing all the way down the slippery slope and advocate "antistatism", "libertarianism", "anarchism", etc." Now they have two problems.
No most of us know that the US has NO legitimate ownership and authority over the things it claims to have control over. Most people cant get this and we have to resort to a more "practical" means of convincing people for people who want an answer to every question like >>29 and even then when we prove that the state has not met the standards they themselves try to use to derail Anti Statism they fall back on the empiricism of the status quo which is a total non answer.
Its not a slippery slope to advocate anti statism because most if not all the things the state values has yet to be achieved in this mess of a society.

Did we have government before religion and ideologies were implemented?
Actually instead of "government" i meant a state.

Since when does socialism mean "economic statism"?

The ancient Egyptian pharaohs personally ran the economy of their land, does that make them socialists?

Fuck, fuck! What is wrong with you people? Capitalism is based on the idea of private ownership, which automatically means a society of laws and regulations that protect private property! Private property is the very core of capital! We are rapidly losing that society (from the standpoint of the individual) and as such, we are rapidly losing individual capitalism. So we are only heading for socialism, as best expressed through corporate socialism.

Even Libertarians generally don't believe in anarchic principles like no government. The modern capitalists (corporate socialists) believe in no government for themselves, but many intrusive and restrictive levels of government for you. There are no real anarchists. The statists are the real problem.

>>30
That's the problem, it depends on a "democratic" method so it can work, the problem is that the people in power have no incentive to abide by the rules so your "system" has an exploit where people can lie, cheat, and steal after they have attained power, sure they cant go too far but as long as its behind closed doors their power is limitless.
It seems to work well in multi-party states, especially ones with proportional representation. I don't think any of that will ever be implemented in the US, at least Federally, but at the state level, that would be nice. With just a two-party system, the politics of everything doesn't evolve past the politics of a fifth grade classroom.
No most of us know that the US has NO legitimate ownership and authority over the things it claims to have control over.
This is your only point that I would agree with you on.
Its not a slippery slope to advocate anti statism because most if not all the things the state values has yet to be achieved in this mess of a society.
It most certainly is, because it views things in only black and white, where the reality is many shades of gray, not to mention that it completely ignores the goods things that the state has done for society, or at least, facilitated for it.

I've heard much MUCH better arguments against a total free market than Upton Sinclair. His writing rots the brain.

It most certainly is, because it views things in only black and white, where the reality is many shades of gray, not to mention that it completely ignores the goods things that the state has done for society, or at least, facilitated for it.

Okay so that must mean i should be an agnostic too, to be logically consistent then, because if i reject the state and the belief in religion then i am "slippery sloping", so i should be a minimalist and not be an absolutist. So i should be for a small amount of rape instead of no rape at all for me to not slippery slope. Your logic is what keeps the state barely breathing from its inevitable death.

The state will fall in our lifetime and there's nothing anybody can do to change that.

>>34
Oh and its not a "slippery slope" i think the term you're looking for is "false dichotomy".

Okay so that must mean i should be an agnostic too, to be logically consistent then
Ideally, you should aim to be atheist, but this topic is about government (or critiquing "statism"), not religion.
so i should be a minimalist and not be an absolutist. So i should be for a small amount of rape instead of no rape at all for me to not slippery slope. Your logic is what keeps the state barely breathing from its inevitable death.
This is exactly the "black and white" thinking I was alluding to earlier. Even the article criticizing Upton Sinclair's book admits that the meatpacking companies in Chicago were for government regulations. As for the "state barely breathing from its inevitable death", you must mean the US government, as it is on its way towards breaking up like the former Soviet Union.

>>38

Ideally, you should aim to be atheist, but this topic is about government (or critiquing "statism"), not religion.

I was applying your reasoning to a similar situation and statism and religion do share a lot of parallels as well.

This is exactly the "black and white" thinking I was alluding to earlier. Even the article criticizing Upton Sinclair's book admits that the meatpacking companies in Chicago were for government regulations.

You forget that these businesses benefit from having regulations as it puts up barriers to entry for smaller companies.

As for the "state barely breathing from its inevitable death", you must mean the US government, as it is on its way towards breaking up like the former Soviet Union.

Statism is a general idea, it encompasses any political ideology that gives a person(s) the perceived legal right to initiate violence against individuals in a certain geographical area.

So no its not just the "U.S. government"
Also i would like to note that government does not equal statism necessarily, as it can be done without a state.

>>39
I was applying your reasoning to a similar situation and statism and religion do share a lot of parallels as well.
Free market advocates tend to go down to theological-like arguments, so that has quite many similar aspects to religion as well. Nearly ever free market advocate/libertarian/anti-statist I've ran into were either soft non-theists, or moderate theists.
You forget that these businesses benefit from having regulations as it puts up barriers to entry for smaller companies.
Society also benefits from regulations. Safety regulations make sure that the ham on your sandwich is safe (though the US could do with tighter regulations on food), and that the Nuclear power plant 5 miles down the road from you isn't going to unexpectedly blow up (again, the US could do with tighter regulations there as well).
Statism is a general idea, it encompasses any political ideology that gives a person(s) the perceived legal right to initiate violence against individuals in a certain geographical area.
It's quite a stretch to suggest that sane regulations that make sure food is safe, and that your immediate surroundings don't become obliterated by a nuclear holocaust equate to "violence".
Also i would like to note that government does not equal statism necessarily, as it can be done without a state.
The only historical example that I can think of immediately might be the Icelandic Commonwealth. Then again, most of the Middle Ages comprised of shitty weak to non-existent governments, or rule by God-thumping mad monarchs. Today, of course, is not the Middles Ages, and both are anachronisms of their times.

What's also interesting is that you keep harping on against the state, when the US government facilitated what later became the Internet we all love and use (DARPA) and the World Wide Web, CERN, which is funded by many European countries as well as the US. Without such, our conversation may never had been possible.

Fuck Unions who WANT 25.00 an hour wages for all workers.

25.00 dollars an hour,in a world with a Globalized economeny.
A world with 00.25 an hour wage is possible.

Ya American worker is so going to fucking going compete with China worker!

>>40
Free market advocates tend to go down to theological-like arguments, so that has quite many similar aspects to religion as well. Nearly ever free market advocate/libertarian/anti-statist I've ran into were either soft non-theists, or moderate theists.

Thats not an argument.

Society also benefits from regulations. Safety regulations make sure that the ham on your sandwich is safe (though the US could do with tighter regulations on food), and that the Nuclear power plant 5 miles down the road from you isn't going to unexpectedly blow up (again, the US could do with tighter regulations there as well).

Thats nice, but you didn't address my point about it hurting small businesses who have no choice to opt whether they want it.
Regulation can come from within the market, it doesn't always have to be from a government. Government regulation has failed in the past with examples such as GM and a certain asprin company who lobbied for regulations for upcoming companies and bypassed them to get into the market easier. If the FDA and the EPA were private companies who's job was to regulate and people heard about these violations then companies would take their business elsewhere to a better "regulation" company.

It's quite a stretch to suggest that sane regulations that make sure food is safe, and that your immediate surroundings don't become obliterated by a nuclear holocaust equate to "violence".

When people are "forced" to subsidize them then yes they are backed by a threat of violence if you dont help.
Again you try to strawman me by implying i am against the services themselves, for what i am really against is there being an illegitimate monopoly on these things and people forced to pay for them or face losing their homes and if they defend their homes then they probably get shot or killed, you dont see that your "government regulations" are backed by a threat, a gun, violence.


The only historical example that I can think of immediately might be the Icelandic Commonwealth. Then again, most of the Middle Ages comprised of shitty weak to non-existent governments, or rule by God-thumping mad monarchs. Today, of course, is not the Middles Ages, and both are anachronisms of their times.

Okay and we still managed to survive so far, so governments and religious ideologies weren't needed.

What's also interesting is that you keep harping on against the state, when the US government facilitated what later became the Internet we all love and use (DARPA) and the World Wide Web, CERN, which is funded by many European countries as well as the US. Without such, our conversation may never had been possible.

Short answer: If the U.S. didn't do it private companies would have.
Long answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbR4cjA-Few

Also saying that the State helped develop the internet is not an argument for the state you are trying to lead this conversation in a different direction.

But alas i dont really see the point of continuing to respond, if you cant see the state for what it really is due to some "dogma" then i wont change your mind.

>>42
Thats not an argument.
Religion and free market/libertarian/antistatist theology also have parallels with each other. So there's a correlation, there at least.
Thats nice, but you didn't address my point about it hurting small businesses who have no choice to opt whether they want it.
What would you define as a "small business", in the first place? What a government defines one as? Your own personal criteria?
Regulation can come from within the market, it doesn't always have to be from a government.
Proof?
Government regulation has failed in the past with examples such as GM and a certain asprin company who lobbied for regulations for upcoming companies and bypassed them to get into the market easier.
This is where I would partially agree with you. My argument is, is that regulations are in principle, a good thing. The issue with them is, is how exactly they're used and employed. A world without government regulation would be hell, a world with improperly employed and executed regulations would be no better.

Another thing with regulations and such, is that they're sometimes dictated by emotion and political uproar, and not scientifically investigated, evaluated and test-run before execution. For that, "internal" regulations keeping the whims of the general politic away from such matters are also necessary. On top of that, I would also make sure the whole process is completely transparent, and the media, and the general public can view the data for themselves (in real time, preferably in this day and age).
So, in short, I agree with some of your criticisms, but unlike you, I'm not going to throw the whole baby with the bathwater.
When people are "forced" to subsidize them then yes they are backed by a threat of violence if you dont help.
The people who feel "forced" are also free to leave the country and find dirt cheap land in some shitty third-world country that barely (if it does) have a "state". There they can create their own communes and governance without having to worry about a "state" interrupting their little fun. Last I checked, freedom of movement is still a huge aspect of the EU and most parts of the Western world (and that inclues movement OUT OF IT).
Okay and we still managed to survive so far
Last I checked, I'm not of Icelandic descent, and most likely neither were any of my ancestors. The Icelandic Commonwealth is only one example. So to slip "we" in there is a bit incongruous on your part. The Icelandic people of those times also didn't have to worry about things like damage to the environment, modern technology, or large scale agriculture in order to accomplish their daily activities.
and religious ideologies weren't needed.
That I certainly will drink to.
Short answer: If the U.S. didn't do it private companies would have.
Again, this is the black and white worldview that you are ascribing to. Private sector, government and also academia are mutually beneficial to one another, and when they combine their funding and efforts, is hugely beneficial to society.
Long answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbR4cjA-Few4:11-4:18 — "As it turned out, ARPANET, the X.25 networks, and Usenet, formed the original backbone networks of the Internet."
If you're going to criticize government facilitation (yes, FACILITATION, not sole development, like the misleading title of your video implies) in respect to the early development of the Internet, at least know what you're talking about and have the history correct. Usenet was created by two Duke University students in 1979, and ARPANET (and the early Internet) was already pretty well "backboned" (for lack of a better term) by that time. The big motivation for the creation of Usenet, is the fact that back then like now e-mail is quite limiting when you wish to discuss a topic with multiple people.
5:47-5:52 — "Imagine trying to create a new protocol, you'd basically be creating a whole new Internet"
*Facepalm* The creation of HTTP, Gopher, IRC, BitTorrent, et al. didn't make some fundamentally brand new Internet! And TCP/IP is used nowadays, because as technology caught up to the standard, any perceived problems with TCP/IP were rendered moot. It wasn't simply just because LOL EVREEUNE WAS USIN EET!, it was a truly superior protocol (at the time, anyway).

Also saying that the State helped develop the internet is not an argument for the state
It is an argument for the state, because simply it helped contribute to the development of the Internet. That's like saying that academia shouldn't get any credit, either, for helping to develop the Internet as well.
you are trying to lead this conversation in a different direction.
No, I've been quite consistent in my argument, and it makes you nervous, because possibly, you may be having second thoughts about the ideology you hold near and dear.
if you cant see the state for what it really is due to some "dogma"
Dogma!? Ha! At one point in the video you said something like (too tired to bother looking up the exact time)
"The free market works this is how it's done, end of story".
Sounds quite a lot like
"I am God, this is how things are done, do not question it!"
And yet, you have the gall to tell other people that they're clinging to some "dogma".

capitalism is the foundation of america so i suggest you quit talking smack you comi nigger

No, I've been quite consistent in my argument, and it makes you nervous, because possibly, you may be having second thoughts about the ideology you hold near and dear.

You know what? fine. lets continue with statism, continue the wars, continue the poverty, continue the imprisonment, continue the torture, continue the abuse, continue the brutality, continue the genosides. Because you are obviously worried that COMPARED TO ALL OF THESE THINGS you care more of what some market COULD do.
At least if a private company did all these things it would be shunned and brought to the ground but when its the "U.S. GOVERNMENT" OH HOLY SHIT!!! GREATER GOOD HERP DERP DOESNT BOTHER ME HERP DERP!!!

And the funny thing is that even then statism still fails marketwise. If being trillions in debt and the high percentage of unemployment doesnt prove that then you know what?
Fuck you.

>>43
Give me 1 example where a state has not superseded its "constitution" within the first 20 years since its inception.

>>43
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16DueNM9ySA
Checkmate

I agree, we need Communism in this country!
Kill anyone who disagrees, or 85 percent of the total population!

>>47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irrelevantvideoofaretardedasiankidgettingrapedbyniggers
Checkmate

>>49
Classy

>>44

Which is why the word capitalism is nowhere in the Constitution. Brainwashed greedy Jew-dick sucking faggot.

>>50
Not as classy as posting a video that doesn't address your opponent's points in lieu of an actual argument and then saying "checkmate."

>>52
If he cares more about the market than human life then i doubt people will take his arguments seriously. Not saying its "wrong" but i doubt he will get many supporters...Still i wonder how many people have to die till statism becomes either obsolete or successful for him....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

>>45
This implies that I agree with those things (I don't). Once again, black and white worldview. My political leanings would be pretty close to social democrats in Europe. We agree on many things, but where we differ most is that unlike you, I know that the free market isn't the solution to fucking everything. It's not some silver bullet that can cure all of society's ills.

>>47
That video doesn't address any of my points, and I'm quite aware that several past presidents have been shit, including the current one.

>>55
Describe in summary the major entities where you believe a free market would be inimical to good social order.

>>56
For one, information asymmetry is a big reason why a lemon car market exists (and other things of a technical nature). A for-profit health care system generally makes people do rash things, not out of evil or contempt, but out of stark rationalizations that they would not have otherwise, because that behavior is a product of it being for profit, not vague notions of "greed", "evil", etc.

I'm not against free markets in certain things, the Internet being a big one. Governments should largely be kept out of that, with maybe the exception to regulate the ISPs to prevent consumer fraud (Net Neutrality), and things of that nature. For the US, specifically, I'm a bit concerned about the FCC going about doing that since they're so tight-assed with regulations regarding television content (in comparison to other countries' equivalents to the FCC), that I wouldn't want to see carried over to ISPs and the Internet in general. We could also do with some tighter environmental and nuclear power plant regulations (and I've been suggesting that even before the earthquake in Japan).

>>55
see
>>53

>>58
Already did. Simply hand waving about "statism" isn't an argument.

>>59
"avoiding the question"
How many people have to die? Its a simple question you know.
Forget the economics you can be right all you want but how many people have to die till statism works for you?
I think people would like to know this, or at least the ones who will be slaughtered by it.

You see until you can go up to people and actually tell them that you want them to be sacrificed in the name of your "statist" progress your words dont mean shit to me and may not mean anything to anyone else, so put your money where your mouth is and answer the question and if you cant, then why not?

I mean surely a system with SO MUCH EMPIRICISM shouldn't be to hard to defend from such a claim right? I mean there must be some good reason as to why millions of people get killed or imprisoned due to it.

>>60
Eat a cock. That's obviously a loaded question.

I have no idea what you people are arguing about. I'm 100% sure that 99.9% of all of humanity has no idea what statism is.

I avoid 'isms' in general.

>>1
Perfect example of saying little in many words.

Communism and Capitalism are both bad for the white race.

>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
This OP

Fuck greed.

Capitalists openly brags about being evil and greedy yet through mass hypnosis they've won the support of most of the upper, middle, and lower classes in most developed nations. The wealthy support the system because they obviously want to protect their excessive and usurped assets which they are convinced they earned fairly and know they can lose at any time. The middle class who know the system is bullshit support because they hope and strive for that unlikely promotion and continue subscribing to the de facto status quo because anything else would temporarily drop their standard of living. The working class support it simply from ignorance. They are grateful for what little they have and are extremely suspicious of change especially if it's contrary to what the public schools and media have convinced them is "the American way".

The American middle class will vanish in a puff of capitalist laughter. This cannot be stopped. Trying to stop it will be futile. So align your expectations properly.

>>67
The US isn't capitalist, it's corporatist.

The wealthy support it because it offers them special privileges and prevents the middle class from competing.

Middle and lower classes like you support it because you think capitalism is the problem and don't understand the omnipresent nature of corruption.

This thread is liberal dog shit.
Get a job losers.

The free market works. Communism\Socialism doesn't. Greed is just a word libcunts use when they want something you have but don't won't to work for it or earn it. 

The free market created the middle class. Leftwingers want to make all of us equally poor while they get to make the rules that they won't live under themselves.

Lets not live in a welfare nanny state, kids. We can be better than that.

>>71
You have a very distorted view of how the rest of the world works. I suggest some traveling to gain some new experiences.

>>72
Right on, because we all know how successful Scientific Marxism-Leninism has been in Russia, and Poland, and the DDR, and Bulgaria, and Rumania, and Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, and North Korea, and Cuba, and Zimbabwe, and...

>>73

Are you seriously dismissing all the technological and scientific advances the Soviet Union made (albeit the United States were also making them and they were competing)? Also most of those countries weren't particularly wealthy or successful before they implemented socialist governments.

As for Cuba and this luxurious casino paradise image it had in the 1950s under Fulgencio Batista. That façade only existed for tourists because peasants and proletarians were suffering.

>Are you seriously dismissing all the technological and scientific advances the Soviet Union made

They stole most of them from the US.

>>73
Affirming the Consequent fallacy. If he's a communist, then he supports social democracy. Hey, he support social democracy. So, he is a communist.
You're conflating social democracy/democratic socialism with communism (especially Marxist derived communism). Social Democratic parties generally reject Marxism in its entirety, and they support a mixed economy which has the best of both capitalism and socialism.

>>73
Most of the US vs. Soviet Union cold war nonsense was just political sideshow. Both collaborated with each other more than anyone would like to admit.

Excuse me, dear communists out there, I'm trying to start into communism and I'd like to understand the hate between Stalinists and Trotskysts. Why do Stalinists say Trotskysm is not real communism when Stalinism is nearer to Fascism? I don't see how supressing the working class and creating a burocratized state is somehow communist. May you help me, elder comrades, please?

>>77
Just get into libertarian socialism, its all the left you want just without all the bad statism.

You all have valid arguments, maybe I can shed some light on this.

I oppose socialism and social democracy while sharing a similar perspective to socialists, the problem is social welfare doesn't work nearly as much as progressives claim and capitalist societies aren't nearly as capitalist as they think either. The truth is we lean too heavily towards statism and corporatism which is the real root cause of the rise of 1920s style banksters and other chronic problems that we consider normal because they've been around for so long, if we actually were free market capitalist we would probably be looking at an upper-middle class competing away the obscene incomes of the top 0.01% super-rich while the lower and middle class benefit from the better managed economy according to the old adage "a rising tide floats all boats".

That said I don't believe there is a continuum between state planning and free markets, after all you need to preserve property rights and preserve the socio-economic conditions that allow preserve property rights to be preserved which will ultimately result in some coercion here and there, of course nothing is perfect either. State intervention can be good or bad for the free market and promoting the general welfare of the people, it's the exact nature of this intervention that matters.

The soviet union did achieve a lot technologically, the thing is they weren't socialist and they would have achieved more if they loosened restrictions on state planning.

>>80
>The soviet union did achieve a lot technologically,
lololololol
fuck off you stupid soviet apologist/commie.
>>76
>You're conflating social democracy/democratic socialism with communism
They are essentially the same thing, the social democracy pushes the communist cancer with the open approval of gullible brainwashed school age sorts and all the hordes of non-whites living on welfare.
>they support a mixed economy which has the best of both capitalism and socialism.
No, this is pure fantasy, has no basis in reality.

>>78
All leftism IS statism, that's the whole fucking point of socialism!
Without the statism..... you are just libertarian!

>>81
Meh it claims to want a stateless society as its goal and does not want to use the state to achieve that end, unlike Marxism that does seek a stateless society but wants to gain control of the state first to abolish it which i think is stupid.

Meh i dont really care i just think if people will be that dogmatically hateful towards markets then at least try to be stateless so people can opt in or out of your system.

Personally Im an Market Anarchist so i would think that stateless society with a free market when you get past all the MONOPOLY and EXPLOITATION fears i think sets the ground for a great and productive society. I could always be wrong though.

>>81
They are essentially the same thing, the social democracy pushes the communist cancer with the open approval of gullible brainwashed school age sorts
Countries who's populace vote for social democratic parties often end up at the top (or quite near the top) in the world for education. The word "gullible" doesn't come to mind when looking at a population that's well-educated. I'm guessing you're American, as the US is slowly approaching education levels that former Soviet republics are at.

>>81
They put a man in space before us and supported modern fighter jets and nuclear weapons. I'm not a stupid commie, I'm not saying they were more technologically advanced than us overall.

If only most Americans knew that they are supporting a fake capitalism. It's a "capitalism" that resembles real capitalism about as much as an octopus resembles an apartment building. It's a "capitalism" that is founded on government interference, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and the concentration of regulatory control in large corporations (which denies competition from smaller businesses regardless of merit).

>>84

OMG UR A COMMIE!!1

>>86
This is the simplistic, dualistic, brainwashed thought process most AmeriKKKans have.

>>87
0/10

I'm sure you win all the arguments with that statement. LOL.

>>59
yes it is,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dGA3uO0R2U

>>89
Still doesn't bring anything new to the argument. Just more hand waving. I've heard much better arguments for total free market than that, but I've also in turn heard much better arguments for governmental regulation.

>>90
You talk the talk......but wheres the walk?

Well you got to admit that nothing stirs innovation and technology more than phat stacks of dollar bills.

>>91
All you're doing is posting links to YouTube videos with a guy who's not really saying much.

>>93
Im waiting, if you arent going to bring up any arguments then we are done here.

I think the free market and Capitalism is fine. Socialism is expensive. Life goes on.

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."  Margaret Thatcher

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: IF YOU DON'T WORK, YOU DIE.

Rudyard Kipling, "The Gods of the Copybook Headings

Why would "God" want to bless a country that has so many official policies that run completely contrary to fundamental principles of the religion that his son presumably died to establish? The answer is that he doesn't.

What is capitalism, OP? Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services between people. Free market capitalism gives you the freedom to start your own business or seek employment as you see fit.

we willfully and perpetually embrace a system that ensures that the worst elements of the human psyche will predominate AND which amply rewards those who act the most reprehensibly.

On the contrary. If your business engages in amoral activity against its customers, they will boycott your company and you will go bankrupt. It's when a state decides that "this business is too big to fail" and feeds it with taxpayer's money, then that business can get away with pulling all sorts of shit. That, however, is not the capitalist system. It is a form of state socialism.

Capitalism is naturally hierarchical, authoritarian, and brutal.

Authoritarian? No. There is no coercion in the free market. You buy what you want, work for who you want to work for and start whatever business you want. How is that authoritarian?

Hierarchical? Definitely. The free market of ideas ensures that the best ideas stay on top (provided there is no state intervention to twist the results in a lobby group's favour).

Brutal? In what way? Wars in the name of oil? Those wouldn't exist without the state declaring war and without state propaganda.

bamboozle billions of people into equating it with democracy.
What's so good about democracy? Democracy is imposing the will of one demographic onto another. It gives the power to decide the nation's future to a demographic which is simply uneducated and will believe anything. I propose that only business owners should be allowed to vote, but then the whole "hurr durr human rights" issue comes into play.

>>97
Why would God give a fuck how Rome is run. Government is a mortal institution run by mortals for mortals.

ITT: we mistake capitalism (the omnipresent exchange of things for things that are purely tokens to represent value) with Capitalism (the ideological worship of the above idea).

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why are they poor, they call me a Communist" - Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

If your business engages in amoral activity against its customers, they will boycott your company and you will go bankrupt.
They will? News to me. Especially when companies are so damn good at distorting the truth.

>>99
*makes t-shirt featuring this quote*

>>99
Why would God give a fuck how Rome is run. Government is a mortal institution run by a few mortals for few mortals.
ftfy

Funny thing is that statist governments first justifications were RELIGIOUS ones, the modern god of your society is the statist governments only instead of a god you depend on a group that caters to 51% of the people and has no incentive to make things better because hes only president for 8 years.

A lot of the times we mistake totalitarianism for capitalism. They make a viable mix for government, but giving the individual knowledge and the proper flow of information is important to stop the greediness and help promote empathy.

>A lot of the times we mistake totalitarianism for capitalism.

Only 10 year old communists do.

>>97
Because the US wasn't founded on the Christian religion (despite the best efforts of the religious right to prove otherwise).

Saying "fuck capitalism" and blaming it for various things doesn't really explain anything, you will never "stick it to the man" or whatever with that attitude. Capitalism was not designed then imposed on a population, it arose from practical necessity millenia ago to guarantee protection to individuals with economic power when otherwise they would simply be robbed by those with political or military power and their economic activity would cease, that is the pragmatic side of things and probably the best place to start when trying to analyze the nature of capitalism, not assigning some emotion like anger to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=player_embedded

>>110
>coming from a marxist perspective
hahahahaha oh wow
most of the shit in that video was wrong

>>111
most of the shit in that video was wrong
So explain how instead of being a faggot. Or can't you?

>>110
>academic
>responsible
>just
>humane
>ISHYGDDT
Sources that are "academic" are as valid and true as Wikipedia.
I like how he only critiques the Keynesian model of of the business cycle but never mentions the Austrians.
Corporatism=/=Capitalism
If you are going to critique something, MAKE SURE YOU DON'T ONLY CRITIQUE THE EASIEST MODEL. A 3 year old would know that the broken window fallacy makes the Keynesian model mostly obsolete.
Oh and even libertarian socialists even know that marx was crap.

lol @ white kids in privileged countries thinking they're the proletariat. Kid, you're on the fucking internet in your apartment, not passed out in the mud after another life draining day at the sweatshop.

The REAL proletariat are my brown, yellow and black skinned brothers worldwide who have become slaves to make stupid shit for overprivileged white people like you. If you think the lip service you pay to your rich white professor in conflict theory 101 will save you, you're wrong foolish gwei lo. Your head will be on the pike right next to "your" oppressors.

>>114
Your whole world view is messed up, blacks and asians can be privileged too, also the middle class and lower class should be working together. Ideally everyone should be middle class. The middle class both own the means of production and work, isn't that what socialism is supposed to be? Workers owning the means of production? Why do you want to make everyone proletariats and peasants for the state?

Think more.

The solution is obvious.

Socialism makes up for nearly all the flaws of capitalism when implemented correctly.  However, in a democracy the population will always be uneducated, unintelligent, and greedy. The majority will elect incompetent leaders over and over again. These leaders, in order to win the popular vote, need to talk a big game and have more pro-me advertising than anti-me advertising, so they need a considerable sum of money for advertising and the support of the major-media corporations, who are controlled by the wealthy. The more people the politician will represent, the more money and advertising the politician needs.

This leads to ever-growing corruption, as the population expands and diversifies, requiring an even greater voice to gain their votes. The head of the government, if elected by the common man, will always be extremely corrupt as they require hundreds of millions in campaign funding, resulting in thousands of promises to the wealthy in exchange for funding. Politicians have to get elected by any means possible, as it is their job and source of income (which, if corrupt enough, can be very high).

The solution, of course, is to not elect the head of the government, and not to leave it up to a group of elected officials to elect as they may vote according to the interests of their campaign funders. Plato described a Philosopher king as the ideal king; we should find the most intelligent and educated man and place him on the throne (females will be less popular over-all in modern society and will have to take more time off to birth and care for heirs, however, when society becomes more open to total equality a female monarch will be nearly as desirable as a male if they are equal in all fields but gender). Succession can be determined by the selection of the most intelligent child, of which the monarch is expected to have many of, regardless of birth order or gender (again, when society modernizes a bit females will become viable), OR the ceremonial 'adoption' of an able leader from outside the family if the  intelligent monarch deems his/her offspring as unfit to rule.

The power of firing ANY non-legislator/judge government employee, within reason (no mass firings of one group of people, like firing every teacher who is a Green Party member) should be given to the monarch, who can intrust it to someone else. Public education will rapidly improve as firing incompetent teachers will become simpler, as will the US Postal Service.

The monarch's descendants will be given the best education available. Should they choose not to learn, they will be unable to take the throne.

Only defensive wars, in which an ENTIRE COUNTRY attacks our country, meaning their government is openly saying "we are declaring war on you", can be declared by the Monarch.

Elections will still be held to elect local representatives., however, voters will have to be at or above a set IQ (probably around  130-140 for the minimum) and will have to have attained a certain level of post-highschool education (Bachelors or Masters as the minimum) from an above-average college (no Debri scholars). These standards will apply to anyone wanting to run for office, possibly to a greater degree. These representatives will receive a small payment (no hundred thousand dollar salaries and ridiculous pensions) and will vote/debate through webcam; they will still keep their regular job. There will be several times the amount of representatives we currently have.

Those allowed to vote will be able to repeal any legislative action through gathering a petition of signatures which will result in a referendum being held.

Judges will be picked by the representatives relative to their locality and approved by the voters. The Supreme court will always have a set limit of judges (no you do what I say or I put the limit at 15 judges instead of 9, and fill the spots with people who agree with me) and will have enormous educational, experience, and IQ requirements (150+). Pay will be about $60,000 a year with no pension. The Supreme court will be 13 members, with the head-justice being elected, 4 justices being elected, 4 selected by the monarch, and 4 selected by the legislators. 3 elected justices, or the head justice + 1 other elected justice, together will have the power to call a referendum against any recent action by judicial branch.

A petition requiring a very very large amount of signatures can be used to call a referendum against any judicial action.

All trials will be conducted by a jury picked from the pool of educated/intelligent voters. All parties involved, defense and prosecution, will be hidden behind screens, use numbers instead of names, and have their voices altered to sound gender-neutral. No information about each trial will be released until after it is over.

The punishment for any level of corruption in all government employees, excluding of course the lower level ones such as teachers or mail-men, will be execution.

The government will be audited on the same 2 days every year, with 1 additional random day. Computers at every police station will randomly select days where the local governing officials are to be monitored. Higher level officials will be monitored 24/7. Governing officials do not have the right to privacy or protection from random search and seizure.

There will be no federal reserve.

The government can vote to delay the collapse of a company, but a vote will not to be held to bail it out.

The government cannot sponsor studies aimed to find negative information about something. All results, positive and negative, must be mentioned whenever the study is mentioned, and it will have to be brought up whenever the it's subject is debated. Nothing can be made illegal without evidence of it's effects, no long-term hypothesis are allowed (this shit will destroy society in 30 years after legalization, trust me, it will just randomly happen in 30 years, I got a feeling).

If a news-source gives biased information they word biased needs to be plastered all over it, and, if it has audio, the reporter needs to say "this is just an opinion based on no evidence or inconclusive evidence" before and after each statement which cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

A socialist-constitutional monarchy.

>>116
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
You've watched Raymonddundas haven't you?

I'm actually in agreement with you OP. But then, there are not many websites out there that don't support capitalism, even when they claim otherwise. You know what pisses me off most about capitalism?

How only the rich get to be free. And freedom means "commanding those below you". Capitalists don't give a "FUCK" about freedom! And yes, 4chan, and 99.9% of all other boards, are capitalist. By inhibiting freedom of speech, they are proving that;

A: They believe in a hierarchy. That somehow we, the peasant class members, are at the beck and call of what the moderators deem appropriate responses. Which how are we supposed to know what the hell that is? It would at least help if there was some flat rules, but then if there were, there'd be no need for mods, as we could just sage and hide threads like that anyway. Why does an imageboard need mods? It doesn't, it's just an excuse to abuse privilege.

B: Most moderators, and their sycophants fall back on "it's their forum/website". Who the fuck says? This is the inherit flaw in capitalism. "Ownership" is an abstract, and it's just an excuse for MORE ABUSE!!! I would think the "owner" would be those who actually work to make the board better. IE: The members. Who contribute discussion, originality, memes, etc. But no... it belongs to someone who just claims authority, and is willing to trample over their rights to keep it that way. So they're just violent thugs, and their constituents are assisting to rape. Many prominent left-wing boards like revleft and soviet empire.com are guilty of this as well. Nothing but bourgeois scumbags.

C: We all know why capitalists censor. Not simply because the truth is inconvenient for them, but because it's about power. Like any rapist, it's simply the principle of they like knowing they can back you into a corner, and violently strip you of your dignity. They get off on it.


Some could argue that in fact, your right not to be banned is protected "BY" capitalism. I used to say that when I was younger. That I owned my account, and that no one had the right to dictate what I could post, where, or when. Because the account was an extension of myself, and since I was the one legally held accountable for whatever I wrote, and had to bust my ass to make posts, I am the sole heir to what happens to that account. And I'm obviously not going to consent to being banned. No "terms of service" or "rules violation" can change that. Something youtube failed to understand when they deleted my videos and banned me, so I reported them to the fucking authorities for copyright violations.

However, capitalism isn't based on rationality or consistency. Just violence. Might makes right in the capitalist's world. And laws only apply to poor people. If "YOU" break the law, you go to jail. When "THEY" break the law, it's "innovative", "daring", or some other crap that romanticizes them even further.

If you think about all the shit capitalists do to people on a daily basis, it's quite shocking many more people just don't freak out and go on killing sprees. And yet we want to believe those type of people are the crazy ones... no, what's crazy is putting up with abuse, abuse, and more abuse. It's not only crazy, it's sick. It ain't just people you don't like suffering... it's you, it's your family, your kids, your fucking dog. You should take this more seriously.

>>118
all of this is wrong

>>119
Nice rebuttal there, chief.

>>120
he values his time more than disproving something you obviously didn't put any effort in.

>>121
I'm not >>118 but >>119 isn't going to get very far with a statement like that. And if he values his time so much, what the hell is he doing on /newpol/ then?

>>122
i never said he didn't value going to /newpol/
i said he didn't value replying to a strawman critique of capitalism without acknowledging that its not how the system is intended to be implemented.
I dont know how many times i have to say this but
capitalism=/=corporatism.
Its like if i critiqued communism without acknowledging that the soviet union was NOT a good example of communism in action.

>>123
capitalism=/=corporatism.Its like if i critiqued communism without acknowledging that the soviet union was NOT a good example of communism in action.Just like the former Soviet Union was not an example of communism in action, neither is the USA (in particular) a good example of capitalism in action. Having said that, looking back throughout history, I cannot find a single civilization that used capitalism as its economic engine that didn't have some corporatist elements within it as well in practice. Going by this logic, it would seem antistatism is about as untenable in practice as is Marxism (which also had a stateless society in the end, at least in theory).

Having said that, looking back throughout history, I cannot find a single civilization that used capitalism as its economic engine that didn't have some corporatist elements within it as well in practice.
Most if not all "recorded" history has been under "statist" type of societies so i would understand if there was few to no examples of a total free market. The only reason the U.S. grew so much at its inception was because it was a qwazi free market at some point before all the state regulations, specifically the restrictions on foreign trade.

Going by this logic, it would seem antistatism is about as untenable in practice as is Marxism (which also had a stateless society in the end, at least in theory).

Well like i said, there was a point in time where there was stateless societies and for the most part they worked fine like medieval Ireland until England finally invaded it hundreds of years later.

I wouldn't say anti statism is "as" untenable because marxism requires taking control of the state first to dissolve it while most other forms of anti statism acknowledge that the best way to dissolve it is through education and tolerance for mostly anything but statism.

Statism is tenable in the short run for sure but in the long run.....well lets just say that the U.S.(which can be said to be one of the best "states" if not the best) will most definitely fall in our lifetime.

>>125
Most if not all "recorded" history has been under "statist" type of societies so i would understand if there was few to no examples of a total free market. The only reason the U.S. grew so much at its inception was because it was a qwazi free market at some point before all the state regulations, specifically the restrictions on foreign trade.
That was also a time where you had child labor, no workplace safety regulations, etc. Not exactly a time that people want to go back to.
Well like i said, there was a point in time where there was stateless societies and for the most part they worked fine like medieval Ireland until England finally invaded it hundreds of years later.
As much as Cromwell may have been a bastard to the Irish, I can't say that it has been entirely a bad thing (ignoring The Troubles, and all the other political bullshit). Ireland also had a primitive form of monarchy during the medieval era, so I don't think it is as "stateless" as you're claiming it to be. Perhaps weakly statist, but so was over half of Europe at the time.
I wouldn't say anti statism is "as" untenable because marxism requires taking control of the state first to dissolve it while most other forms of anti statism acknowledge that the best way to dissolve it is through education and tolerance for mostly anything but statism.
See, that seems to make as much sense as "once communism is achieved, the state will magically wither away", which pretty much means that in practice, has no basis in reality. When it comes down to it, it's all just theory. It's a nice theory, but that's about it.
Statism is tenable in the short run for sure but in the long run.....well lets just say that the U.S.(which can be said to be one of the best "states" if not the best) will most definitely fall in our lifetime.
The US on its current path (if no major change happens) is doomed to break up like the former Soviet Union, in which case the individual states will end up being their own republics (think Vermont before it entered the Union). There will still be "statism", but it'll be more decentralized and local. Or, such states will coalesce together and keep the name (instead of 50 states, you now have half that).
Also, I wouldn't say that the US is one of the best, or the best state. When you have huge income inequalities, rising obesity, decline in literacy, numeracy, a burgeoning culture of anti-intellectualism, a religious minority gaining more strength in the political system, and culture, etc. The US' neighbors in the anglosphere are also suffering under similar problems, but not anywhere as bad as the US is, and certainly that goes for countries in continental Europe, and while none of these places have governments as  bureaucratic as the US', they aren't exactly "free market", either.

>>122
I'm sure even if I did prepare a long rebuttal that addressed all of his points, it would achieve nothing. He would still be bitching about what has helped him so much and what has given him his privilege in society.

>>126
That was also a time where you had child labor, no workplace safety regulations, etc. Not exactly a time that people want to go back to.

Well personally i dont see anything wrong with "child labor" as long as its voluntary, now you can make the case that it is coercive because they need it to buy resources but if thats the case then you should really blame the state who claims vast portions of unused land for itself and does not allow for those children and their families to settle and be self sufficient.

You seem to imply that the goal of anti statism is to recede all of the technological and cultural advancements, which is not the case, all the things you desire of a society can and will be provided to you in a stateless society, the only difference is that there wont be a group of people with the monopolistic presumed legal right to use violence in a geographical area.

As much as Cromwell may have been a bastard to the Irish, I can't say that it has been entirely a bad thing (ignoring The Troubles, and all the other political bullshit). Ireland also had a primitive form of monarchy during the medieval era, so I don't think it is as "stateless" as you're claiming it to be. Perhaps weakly statist, but so was over half of Europe at the time.

Meh i guess Iceland was a better example but nonetheless i believe the people there would have eventually outgrown the monarchy.

See, that seems to make as much sense as "once communism is achieved, the state will magically wither away", which pretty much means that in practice, has no basis in reality. When it comes down to it, it's all just theory. It's a nice theory, but that's about it.
I can kinda agree with you on communism but the fundamental principle of market anarchy/ anti statism and many other forms of it is that it is how all humans organize naturally when in non-coercive situations and it works in practice every single day.

"it is how states cooperate with one another without a state above them, and it is how people within the state cooperate without a state above them
it is the natural social organization of humans
absent bullshit religions about monopolies on violence
that's all market anarchism is"

to claim that that doesn't function in reality shows nothing but staggering ignorance of what's being discussed.

huge income inequalities
explain further because im not sure which ones you are talking about

rising obesity
People who are perfectly healthy are defined as "obese" look at this for more...
http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head

decline in literacy
I agree and this is because of state intervention and forced attendance.

a religious minority gaining more strength in the political system
When you have a system that in its inception used religious and ideological justification it should be no surprise that people who already are indoctrinated would seek to gain power over it when threatened with the possibility of its collapse.

But really as big as the religious majority is you cant deny the steady rise of atheism throughout the last century.

>>118
0/10 cry moar
you're just butthurt that STI finally permabanned you

>>128
Well personally i dont see anything wrong with "child labor" as long as its voluntary, now you can make the case that it is coercive because they need it to buy resources but if thats the case then you should really blame the state who claims vast portions of unused land for itself and does not allow for those children and their families to settle and be self sufficient.
There are environmental factors that largely prevent that from happening. The world population as it stands cannot be sustained without modern agriculture. And with the world as globalized as it is, the US will not likely be an agrarian nation again (unless peak oil affects the world as much as they claim it will).
You seem to imply that the goal of anti statism is to recede all of the technological and cultural advancements, which is not the case, all the things you desire of a society can and will be provided to you in a stateless society, the only difference is that there wont be a group of people with the monopolistic presumed legal right to use violence in a geographical area.
Like Marxism, this sounds like a wonderful theory. THEORY, of course, being the key word.
Meh i guess Iceland was a better example but nonetheless i believe the people there would have eventually outgrown the monarchy.
Well, of course, the southern portion is now a republic.
I can kinda agree with you on communism but the fundamental principle of market anarchy/ anti statism and many other forms of it is that it is how all humans organize naturally when in non-coercive situations and it works in practice every single day.
Doesn't seem like it would quite work well as it scales up. In more modern times, I've only seen stateless societies work in little communes and such. You'd probably have a better time convincing people of that.
explain further because im not sure which ones you are talking about
Wages aren't up to prices. And don't tell me it's because of minimum wage (it's not). Wages should be double than what they are now.
People who are perfectly healthy are defined as "obese" look at this for more...http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head
Well, it's not just McDonald's that helps it along, but also the fact that junk food is generally quite cheap. It's a good example of how loosely-regulated supermarkets, fast food chains, etc. really are. Multinationals are strong enough to where they will exert their force wherever they may do so, state or no state.

I agree and this is because of state intervention and forced attendance.
I would disagree. Other governments and countries spend much less of a percentage on their education systems and their students come out with much better results in literacy, numeracy, etc. Finland, for example, usually comes out on top in the world for education, in the 1970s, their education was shit. They've eliminated their standardized testing, and reformed the system, and now it's one of the best in the world. Japan, also comes out top in education, as well as one of our anglosphere neighbors, Australia. They also are all compulsory (meaning forced attendance). None of these countries' education systems are free market in any sense of the word, either. If the free market is the cure-all for everything, how is it that these countries largely outpace the US in education with their non-market based education systems?
When you have a system that in its inception used religious and ideological justification it should be no surprise that people who already are indoctrinated would seek to gain power over it when threatened with the possibility of its collapse.
Well, it's cultural as well (I see you selectively quoted what I wrote). If they cannot gain power through government, they'll just find some other way.
But really as big as the religious majority is you cant deny the steady rise of atheism throughout the last century.
This has pretty much been happening in the western world for quite a while, the US is just playing catch-up for the most part.

I'm against libertarianism, and what you're advocating because most western countries and the US have been going in more market-orientated directions as of the past few decades (as their governments have been moving further to the right). Even UK's Labour party (now pretty much a right-wing party) which claims to uphold social democratic principles, has pretty much abandoned most of them in favor of a more neo-liberal approach, going further in that direction, will exacerbate the problems we're seeing now, not solve them, or at the very least, keep them to a minimum.

"Here is some sincere advice to US protesters: dress better. I’m not kidding. You may think you’re paying homage to the peace-loving hippies, but the masses of America--the people whose support you’re going to need--fucking hate hippies. Take a lesson from the protesters of the 20s and 30s. Dress cleanly and neatly. Hell, wear a tie. Remember, our great-grandparents were the ones who effected real social change, e.g, the forty hour work week. Our pot-smoking parents failed where our suit wearing grandparents succeeded."

>>130
There are environmental factors that largely prevent that from happening. The world population as it stands cannot be sustained without modern agriculture. And with the world as globalized as it is, the US will not likely be an agrarian nation again (unless peak oil affects the world as much as they claim it will).

People have always found ways to survive in the environment or they move, my point still stands about states claiming plots of good land that it does not use for itself.

Like Marxism, this sounds like a wonderful theory. THEORY, of course, being the key word.

Because statism has worked in practice to the extent that it has pursued a more peaceful and tolerant society. Statism has failed in all areas it claims to be needed for.

-There's still war and on a bigger scale, note that these wars are mostly only possible because of the debt of the war being shouldered on the people.

-Millions are imprisoned everyday for nonviolent crimes being judged under laws they never consented to.

-People are being robbed on a global scale due to fiat currency, deficit spending, and forced ponzi schemes like social security.

-Parents are forced to pay and send their kids to school where they are forced to learn under a strict standard.

-Restrictions on trade and business so that big businesses dont have much competition.

-The ideological control that you are showing me at the moment by defending it so persistently. (Stockholm Syndrome)And its not even just Stockholm, the state makes you want to die for it or at least those who do anyways and kill those who disagree like me who are of no threat to you. You cannot claim to say "live and let live" while supporting a state, "an act of state is an act of war", i do not think the solution to having a "better society" is to "force" people to abide by a standard of which i think is right(or utilitarian), you, or the majority by that matter.
Like-minded people will get together and naturally emerge building their own societies how they see fit and if they fail well at least everyone who didn't agree with them didn't have to suffer THEIR consequences.

Now you can say statism has "partially" succeeded but that's a subjective standard i would not like to have.
 
Doesn't seem like it would quite work well as it scales up. In more modern times, I've only seen stateless societies work in little communes and such. You'd probably have a better time convincing people of that.

Yeah, states DO THAT. And just because a state was able to "take over" a stateless society, that does not mean statism is by any means "better".

Wages aren't up to prices. And don't tell me it's because of minimum wage (it's not). Wages should be double than what they are now.
"should be"- so you think you should have a say in how an employer spends his money?

Well, it's not just McDonald's that helps it along, but also the fact that junk food is generally quite cheap. It's a good example of how loosely-regulated supermarkets, fast food chains, etc. really are. Multinationals are strong enough to where they will exert their force wherever they may do so, state or no state.

Why do you blame the supplier for supplying what the people WANT.
You really dont know how corporations are products of the state do you?
If you cant understand that then i REALLY now know you arent an econ major.

I would disagree. Other governments and countries spend much less of a percentage on their education systems and their students come out with much better results in literacy, numeracy, etc. Finland, for example, usually comes out on top in the world for education, in the 1970s, their education was shit. They've eliminated their standardized testing, and reformed the system, and now it's one of the best in the world. Japan, also comes out top in education, as well as one of our anglosphere neighbors, Australia. They also are all compulsory (meaning forced attendance). None of these countries' education systems are free market in any sense of the word, either.

child abuse is allowed there(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jg90JNksE) and indoctrination does wonders,
tests dont mean shit, intelligence is for the most part subjective, i can say that because they still believe in a state it doesn't matter how many tests they can pass they still fail in my book.

If the free market is the cure-all for everything, how is it that these countries largely outpace the US in education with their non-market based education systems?

Because the Education system in the U.S. is not free market?
All forms of teaching still are FORCED to abide by the state standard which i would NOT call free by any means.

Well, it's cultural as well (I see you selectively quoted what I wrote). If they cannot gain power through government, they'll just find some other way.

Then maybe you DON'T WANT A GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVING THE PRESUMED LEGAL RIGHT TO USE FORCE OVER A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SO THAT THEY CANT DO THAT.

I'm against libertarianism, and what you're advocating because most western countries and the US have been going in more market-orientated directions as of the past few decades (as their governments have been moving further to the right).

ITS NOT LIBERTARIANISM, its Anti Statism/Anarcho Capitalism/
im sympathetic towards libretarianism because they seek a smaller gov but they are still statist. Its not all right, im indifferent and tolerant of libertarian socialism(aka vanilla anarchy, mutualism, and anarcho syndicalism.

Even UK's Labour party (now pretty much a right-wing party) which claims to uphold social democratic principles, has pretty much abandoned most of them in favor of a more neo-liberal approach, going further in that direction, will exacerbate the problems we're seeing now, not solve them, or at the very least, keep them to a minimum.

Or you could not be an authoritarian and REALLY let people live how they want in the context of their like-minded societies, either way its going to happen, i know mankind's mostly ignorant but if they can overcome religion they can overcome the state.

tl;dr but might i just interject to point out that while yes, lines on a map are bullshit and politicians are theiving bastards by nature, on the other hand we do need [a plurality of] large recongised authorities, e.i. accrediting education, verifying and setting medical standards and so on.
[un]fortunately things aren't bad enough yet for us to really know what needs to change, and invariably once change does come we'll realise with hindsight that more is needed. the circle of life chaps...

>>132
You think rapists consent to rape laws? You're going to have to define the problem better than that.

>>134
Then they would live in a rapist society?

The only "laws" that would be implemented in the different societies would be ones people are willing to go to war for.
I believe rape, murder, theft, etc... would mostly be opposed.

It’s pretty simple.
Capitalism = Greed
Greed = Evil
Therefore: Capitalism = Evil

Of course, we are stuck with Capitalism until people who oppose it propose an alternative.  What is it? Communism according to Marx?  PARECON (Participatory Economics) according to Michael Albert? Something else?

>>135
The rapists in those societies won't reveal who they are or move.

Do I really have to explain this shit to you?

>>137
Is that you Obama?

>>137
Yeah because that TOTALLY cant happen now as well.
Do I really have to explain this shit to you?

>>139
Enlighten me.

>>139
For the record, I was talking about rapists not living in a society that allows rape.

>>139
So the rapists are living in a society that does not allow rape.

>>139
Rape.

>>140
>>141
>>142
>>143
They will probably be asked to consent to the common law of that society beforehand, if they don't then they will not be allowed to join that society. If he rapes then he will be punished accordingly to the local law. I don't see the difference having a state makes.

>>144
There is no difference because this society has a state as well, you're just calling it "local law".

>>145
State:a person or group with the "presumed" legal right to initiate force in a geographical area, without the consent of mostly everyone in that society.
Even if they do consent there is major smoke and mirrors about supporting policies by proxy that the individual himself would not support.

Stateless: a person or group of people (depends on the society) with the legitimate right to initiate force in a geographical area where everyone in that area has consented to said laws, but the scope would probably be reduced drastically most probably not including unused plots of land. People would be more informed on what services they want provided to them and would have a choice(in some societies) whether or not to opt in.

I cant give you all the answers, im not a central planner, all i know is that people can and will organize without a state, after all and that's the way it was before Statism and it worked fine then and it will work even better in the future. There was a time where people didn't have "gods" to regulate them and they lived just fine, why is the state any different?

>>146
There was a time where people didn't have "gods" to regulate them and they lived just fine, why is the state any different?
Because deities, in all likelihood, don't exist; states do. And "statism" has more or less existed as long as human civilization has. Even in the days of the Fertile Crescent and ancient Mesopotamia. I'd say "statism" is an extension of tribalism, not so much religion. And even atheists won't like to admit it, but even if you take religion out of the equation, human beings are tribal in nature. You're never really going to take that away completely.

>>146
all i know is that people can and will organize without a state
So they'll organize and create their own little state, and then it's back to square one (note: this is how most constitutions were written in most western democracies). What stops people from doing that? Nothing. Your arguments for anti-statism seem to be akin to dividing by zero.

>>147
Because deities, in all likelihood, don't exist; states do. And "statism" has more or less existed as long as human civilization has. Even in the days of the Fertile Crescent and ancient Mesopotamia. I'd say "statism" is an extension of tribalism, not so much religion. And even atheists won't like to admit it, but even if you take religion out of the equation, human beings are tribal in nature. You're never really going to take that away completely.

Statism is an arbitrary claim there is no inherent manifestation of it in reality, its an ideology.
What you said can be construed as saying "god is everywhere so therefore he exists".

Tribes are not states and they are anti statist in nature because the scope of their influence does not supersede their "homesteaded" land.

>>148
So they'll organize and create their own little state

It wont be a state because its built from the bottom up and most if not ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY ACTUALLY CONSENTED, and why the fuck do you think people will go back to statism after they went through all the trouble to get rid of it in the first place? Its like saying you want to build a bridge then after you do, you now want to destroy it.

People in modern society only support the state because its the status quo and not on any kind of merit(and if they do its only on ones that can be achieved in a stateless society as well), "statism is dead" but people dont want to admit it, they like to stay in their little shell and live their simple lives which is fine if they arent going to open their mouths and show their ignorance.

Your arguments for anti-statism seem to be akin to dividing by zero.
Actually they are dividing by 1 because it all goes back to the individual.

>>132
People have always found ways to survive in the environment or they move, my point still stands about states claiming plots of good land that it does not use for itself.
The land designated for national parks weren't really used all that much to begin with. Having them protected from any future development is not a bad thing.
Because statism has worked in practice to the extent that it has pursued a more peaceful and tolerant society. Statism has failed in all areas it claims to be needed for.-There's still war and on a bigger scale, note that these wars are mostly only possible because of the debt of the war being shouldered on the people.-Millions are imprisoned everyday for nonviolent crimes being judged under laws they never consented to.-People are being robbed on a global scale due to fiat currency, deficit spending, and forced ponzi schemes like social security.-Parents are forced to pay and send their kids to school where they are forced to learn under a strict standard.-Restrictions on trade and business so that big businesses dont have much competition.Most of those issues are American-centric, especially the wars. There are coalitions of other nations involved in them as well, but not to the extent that the US is, coupled with its pig-headed nationalism to boot.
I, of course don't agree with #2, either. #3 is just more hand waving, not really an argument. #4 I disagree with. Education is there to protect developing minds from the poisonous memes that can inhibit reasoning and critical thinking (on top of teaching the basics, and whatnot). The kind of stuff mentioned in #5, I don't agree with, either.
-The ideological control that you are showing me at the moment by defending it so persistently. (Stockholm Syndrome)And its not even just Stockholm, the state makes you want to die for it or at least those who do anyways and kill those who disagree like me who are of no threat to you. You cannot claim to say "live and let live" while supporting a state, "an act of state is an act of war", i do not think the solution to having a "better society" is to "force" people to abide by a standard of which i think is right(or utilitarian), you, or the majority by that matter.
Like-minded people will get together and naturally emerge building their own societies how they see fit and if they fail well at least everyone who didn't agree with them didn't have to suffer THEIR consequences.
No. I've looked carefully at things, and I've realized that governments can do good for their people, just as they're capable of doing awful things. This wasn't because I was told/taught this, or that this is the way things are. I came to the conclusion, myself, with a thinking brain.
Now you can say statism has "partially" succeeded but that's a subjective standard i would not like to have.
Whatever you say.
Yeah, states DO THAT. And just because a state was able to "take over" a stateless society, that does not mean statism is by any means "better".
Communes are all over the place, and are only a search away. I've found a local one that's being formed a little over 50 miles from where I live. There's no law or regulation on the books that stops people from forming and/or joining one.
"should be"- so you think you should have a say in how an employer spends his money?
When it affects the livelihood of his or her employees, yes I do.
Why do you blame the supplier for supplying what the people WANT.
This may be biased, due to my being slightly misanthropic, but most people are fucking morons, who in fact, really don't know what they want half of the time. If I really didn't give a shit in the most outré manner possible, then sure, everyone can do whatever they liked and not care what it does to the rest of society or someone else. But the fact that I do somewhat give a shit, and the fact that I have to deal with the aforementioned morons, means that things need to be reformed. Health care is high enough, there doesn't need to be more of a burden than there already is (the Fat Head film is not the typical example, full of obesity crankery, not really an argument there).
You really dont know how corporations are products of the state do you?
At this point, it doesn't matter. No matter what country they're in, multinationals will exert their force (as long as it's profitable to do so). They would be McDonald's even in fucking Somalia if it were profitable enough.
If you cant understand that then i REALLY now know you arent an econ major.
Please. You're a twenty-year old uploading videos on YouTube about your no-state theories (you aren't as educated in economics as you pretend to be).
Also, speaking about McDonald's (and other fast food chains), the fact that they now have nutritional information right there on the box (this should have been done a long, long, time ago) makes people think twice about their behavior via a feedback loop. You can read more about that in regards to real-time displays on posted speed-limit signs, and how it changes people's behavior. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_feedbackloop/
child abuse is allowed there(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jg90JNksE) and indoctrination does wonders,
The case with Chinese mothers/parents is a cultural problem, not so much a state one (though, child abuse should of course be dealt with). Countless centuries of being subjected to cultural memes and practices passed down through countless generations and continuing to practice them in a culture (Western) where such parental upbringing is seen as alien and abhorrent. You could make the case of this being the result of at least five decades of loose immigration policies, but that's another symptom of rampant globalization. I'm not against globalization entirely, but some alternative form of it that's not based solely on profit and mindlessly shifting labor, goods, and people about.

I didn't mention PRC as one of the countries, the only Asian country I mentioned was Japan. Perhaps Japanese kids undergo similar parenting, I don't know.
tests dont mean shit, intelligence is for the most part subjective, i can say that because they still believe in a state it doesn't matter how many tests they can pass they still fail in my book.
Ah, testing. The never-ending trumpet card that is always being shouted to improve education in the US, which bring me to my next point:
Because the Education system in the U.S. is not free market?
The education systems of the countries that I mentioned aren't free market, either. Not by a long shot. West Virginia, is attempting to emulate some of the educational reforms that Finland used that has their education system now often ranked number 1 in the world. Very good article and video about that. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/education.wv.finland/index.html They also completely eliminated their standardized testing, and measure success of teachers and students by more sane, sensible, and efficient means.
All forms of teaching still are FORCED to abide by the state standard which i would NOT call free by any means.
The results of Finland and other countries that don't lag far behind it in education speak for themselves. At the end of the day, Finnish students (most of them) will probably end up voting for the Social Democrats come next election, as a way of saying "Thanks for continuing to maintain one of the world's best education systems". To say this is violent coercion is truly stretching the definitions of those words.
Then maybe you DON'T WANT A GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVING THE PRESUMED LEGAL RIGHT TO USE FORCE OVER A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SO THAT THEY CANT DO THAT.
No need to shout, we're not animals here.
ITS NOT LIBERTARIANISM, its Anti Statism/Anarcho Capitalism/
I'm aware of the differences, but they're all just theories.
im sympathetic towards libretarianism because they seek a smaller gov but they are still statist.
Okay.
Its not all right, im indifferent and tolerant of libertarian socialism(aka vanilla anarchy, mutualism, and anarcho syndicalism.
Libertarian socialism, that's what Chomsky supports. I've never really cared too much about Chomsky's political views beyond what he wrote about various CIA-backed coups (attempted and successful) and how corporate media acts as a propaganda device. Another nice little theory that's good for kicking the ol' peanut around.
Or you could not be an authoritarian and REALLY let people live how they want in the context of their like-minded societies, either way its going to happen, i know mankind's mostly ignorant but if they can overcome religion they can overcome the state.
Labour was less authoritarian back in the early 70s and 80s. How they are today is not the same party they were back then. Hence why they're colloquially known as "New Labour". Not terribly much difference between the mainline parties. The Lib Dems I guess are still a decent party. It would be nice if the US had a multi-party system, too.

>>149
Statism is an arbitrary claim there is no inherent manifestation of it in reality, its an ideology.
Going by that logic, yours is just an ideology, too.
What you said can be construed as saying "god is everywhere so therefore he exists".
Not really. States do exist, and have done things. I'm still waiting for God to come out and do something, obviously that won't happen, because mostly likely he doesn't exist. I wouldn't exactly conflate the two.
Tribes are not states and they are anti statist in nature because the scope of their influence does not supersede their "homesteaded" land.
Neighboring tribes fight and cooperate with each other all the time. It's just the same thing repeated on a much larger scale.
It wont be a state because its built from the bottom up and most if not ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY ACTUALLY CONSENTED, and why the fuck do you think people will go back to statism after they went through all the trouble to get rid of it in the first place? Its like saying you want to build a bridge then after you do, you now want to destroy it.
Because people, in general are fucking morons. If that's what they want, that's what will happen.
People in modern society only support the state because its the status quo and not on any kind of merit(and if they do its only on ones that can be achieved in a stateless society as well), "statism is dead" but people dont want to admit it, they like to stay in their little shell and live their simple lives which is fine if they arent going to open their mouths and show their ignorance.
I could say stuff like "human civilization is dead!", doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Actually they are dividing by 1 because it all goes back to the individual.
Cute.

>>150
>>151
Alright fuck it im making a video so i can articulate this better.

Statism vs anti-Statism

No one knows or cares why both of you hide behind meaningless fag terminology to promote an argument that no one understands.

Dear faggots. Statism and socialism aren't the same thing.

>>154
Statism and socialism aren't the same thing.
Try telling that to AntiStatist.

>>153
>No one knows or cares why both of you hide behind meaningless fag terminology to promote an argument that no one understands.
It's not hard to understand at all

>>154
How do you collectivize something without a state? Socialists seem to think they are immune to corruption and somehow magically don't suffer from the same problems as every other society.

>>154
>>157
State socialism and Libertarian Socialism are 2 different things.

Capitalism and corporatism need not be the same thing, you know.

There have been countless "statist" governments throughout history that didn't follow the teachings of Karl Marx. Most precede his existence.

Hence why the statist vs anti-statist argument is pointless. These words have no meaning.

>>150
>>151
>>161
here's something to put it in context.
http://fringeelements.info/post/4748667945/crash-course-on-my-anti-statism

This pretty much adds up everything Anti Statism is about imo. (Don t mind the anime and long length)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AScfnJfb-8

Heres a vid on a basic intro to anti statism law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylXAhyDZhZ4&feature=related

>>162
For a crash course it sure is convoluted and full of pointless flowery language.

Whatever happened to people stating a sequence of facts and axioms?

Civilization was founded on "statism" and has nothing to do with the modern ideologies of socialism and communism.

>>164
"Evidence of the earliest known city-states has been found in ancient Mesopotamia around 3700 BC, suggesting that the history of the state is in truth less than 6,000 years old; thus, for most of human prehistory the state did not exist. Since homo sapiens have existed for about 200,000 years, it implies that state-organized societies have existed for at most 3% of the whole epoch of recognizably "human" history."

>>165
Tribes are states. The state has existed for 100% of human history.

Just why are anarchists so statist?

For people who claim to hate the state they sure do love creating the socio-economic conditions for statism to thrive. This could be compared to more rational practical people who recognize the state is inevitable and instead work to reduce it's impact and ensure good governance thereby reducing statism in practice as opposed to theorizing statelessness while never actually accomplishing it.

It's a fact. Anarchists love the state, they are mindless conformists who enjoy obeying their corporate masters. Of course it doesn't matter whether you're conformist or not, I'm just saying.

>>166
States govern from the top down, stateless societies govern from the ground up. If you cant tell the difference between consent and assumed consent then you dont understand what makes the state different from any other firm . ( theres a bit of ideological control as well which has sustained its "legitimacy".)
>>167
The state's nature is to grow, just look at the smallest "state" the us at its founding. It went from being a small minarchist constitutionalist states to one of the biggest nations on earth and tyrannous as well, thinking you can sustain it from growing is a fantasy at best.

>>162
You know, you shouldn't be afraid to post with your tripcode all the time

Good lord, that is terrible! Wasting bandwidth like that with two videos that are over two hours in length combined! The simple blog post is sufficient.

My points still stand (especially education).

>>163
My thoughts as well. Not to mention extremely long and tedious (to the point of being comical) for laying out one's political philosophy (and this is crash course, mind you).

>>169
It should be as long as it needs to be whether that's 3 minutes o 1 hour and 20 minutes, the problem is it's irrational layout.

>>170
It should be as long as it needs to be whether that's 3 minutes o 1 hour and 20 minutes
Not for an introduction. There's no reason why a political philosophy couldn't be summed up in an introductory manner in three to four paragraphs and/or a three to ten minute video. Leave the more complex and tedious bits for interested parties who want to look into it more. If it has to be that long and tedious, it's either really that complex to explain, or filled with a bunch of rubbish to allocate large amounts of video time and/or text to look like one is making a strong argument. I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

>>169
I posted at work and i have my trip on auto fill.
>>170
I spent 30min on the first 2 paragraphs of >>150

>>171
Its not that easy, because there is no "Objective" means of property ownership/claim. If you give me a standard other than the usual "because the state said so" or "they have the guns", then i can show how the state is not legitemate by that standard. Usually the neolockean standard of ownership comes up and by that standard the state can not claim vast amounts of land it does not "improve" or "use".
Ownership is subjective and usually is up to the people to decide what consitutes "owning" land in a specific region but to claim the area deemed "The United States of America" seems to me as an overclaim with obvious social problems arrising from this. All anti-statism mostly is, is for people with similar or equal preferences to form their own societies from the ground up, now this may resemble a state but is different from the assumed consent that the "constitution" had.

>>168
Governing "from the ground up" implies that you can't have anyone rise too high, status-wise or otherwise. That sounds like it would inhibit and impede any sort of innovation.

Letz get that petition over 150 votes to get it public.
If it gets over 5000 they have to answer it...
Would love to hear the answer.

http://wh.gov/4Jl

>>174
"Lets give everyone money for free."
It wouldn't help anything, it would just encourage more people to not work.

>>175
Yeah, but it would encourage even more people to vote for the politicians passing out the checks.

We have reached the point in the US now where all elections are an advance auction of stolen goods.  No exceptions.

>>174
is that a serious petition

>>177
Is this?  http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Surprisesex

It's not that the idea the Capitalism is bad, it's that it's so FUCKING easy to corrupt it.

>>179
it's that it's so FUCKING easy to corrupt it.
When there's a state.

>>179
So is just about everything else.

even being corrupted capitalism itself is bad...
you cant have a corruption free society when theres a few getting richer and lots staying poor

>you cant have a corruption free society when theres a few getting richer and lots staying poor

Implying that making everyone equally poor gets rid of corruption.

everyone should have the same basic things to live well.Only then we could think of getting rich.

Capitalism is the reason for most of the world's political liberalization, capitalism requires an educated middle class to think up all the ad campaigns and sort out the finances of the rich and interpret the unfathomably complex tax and property law system, this huge bureaucracy then goes on to demand power for themselves and empowers the lower classes to do it. Not everything is black and white.

In the real world it's not uncommon for things that seem unfair like capitalism to turn out to be better than esoteric daydreams like socialist/anarchist utopias which are only better in theory.

>>185
In the real world it's not uncommon for things that seem unfair like capitalism to turn out to be better than esoteric daydreams like socialist/anarchist utopias which are only better in theory.
What is this "real world" you speak of? Anarchy existed way before states were formed and we did just fine then without all the religious/political wars. Socialism? The US has BEEN socialistic already, the only thing keeping us from becoming a communist state is the corporatism which i perfer WAY more than the former, not that it says much because its like choosing to cut your finger instead of your hand.

Capitalism is awesome it's humans who corrupt it.

Did you know that thanks to Capitalism the middle class was invented?

Did you know that thanks to Capitalism we can have luxuries that back then only royalty had?

I can do an entire list of Capitalism facts but you get the point. Capitalism is the best economic system of teh now! But of course every country needs at least a little Socialism too.

The interests of the dealers[capitalists] ... is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention.

It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

-Adam Smith


Capitalism as intended isn't what most Republicans think it is.

Their[Capitalists] superiority over the country gentleman[landowner ie homeowners]is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his.  It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed on his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple and honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public.

- Adam Smith

Obviously it brings to mind the Koch brothers and the Tea Party, Republicans, and the efforts to block higher taxes for the rich.  People seldom realize that Adam Smith advocated higher taxes for the rich.

>>188
>>189
And what about democrats?

In political terms there are 2 core issues concerning free enterprise stemming from basic logic, that all private individuals should be on equal legal footing and that the state should not try to interfere with the economy when it doesn't know what it's doing. Republican corporate shills oppose equal legal footing while Democrats oppose preventing the government from making mercantilist keynesian style interventions.

Keynesian style isn't working out so well.

>>191
Correct. We don't need hippy faggots waving placards in wall street, we need violent right wing extremists with nooses.

>>192
LA OWS fags beat you too it. They are calling for violent revolution and the usual far left jew hate. :)

Stay classy.

So you'd like Comunist oppression? Sucks to be your 2 inch tucked in dick

>>193
They're naive idiots who think shitty poems accompanied by drumbeats or beginner acoustic guitar chords will convince sociopaths of the error of their ways. Also no one ever mentioned "jew hate", not sure what the fuck you're talking about there.

>>195
It's in the news. Google it.

>>196
Come on, everyone knows there is always a minority who are the exception to the rule in every large group, if it's an insignificant proportion I'm going to talk like it's 0 just like I don't mention millions of other insignificant things.

Whatever Japan is doing seems to be working. Oh yeah, but they actually have discipline, work ethics, loyalty, values, and honour.

>>198
lolwut

Japan has been in a recession for 20+ years now.  Their unemployment rate is slightly lower than ours, for the moment, mainly because so many of their working males are dying of old age and not being replaced, Japanese women having found during the 80s "bubble" years that they prefer the "parasite single" career-girl lifestyle to anything that might result in--ick!--childbirth; birthrates are a tiny fraction of replacement rate.  Not coincidentally, their national debt has passed 200% of GDP and is rising rapidly as more and more geezers demand government pensions paid for by fewer and fewer workers.

Japan is in an economic and demographic death-spiral.  In another 30-40 years they're going to be a province of Korea, if they're lucky, or China, if they're not.

200

Calm down.

I'm sure you just watched "fight club" or something and now think it's "sick" to mock capitalism, the thing is capitalism only seems worse because it allows people to see it's flaws and criticise them, the very act of attempting to fault capitalism only makes it stronger.

we need a balance between both capitalism and socialism. you shouldn't be starving because you made a few mistakes, nor should you not be able to reap the rewards that the free market offers. but in every market if someone is rich, someone is poor.

>>202
I hate to discuss semantics but socialism is a highly politicized term...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism
capitalism is as well I suppose but capitalism was never an ideology like socialism, unless you think a few Ayn Rand worshipping wingnuts constitute an ideology.

This belief that there is a continuum between socialism and capitalism is a highly flawed perspective, from the practical perspective socialism is an ideology which has effects very different from it's theoretically perfect utopia, it could not be more distant from the notions of "cooperation verus competition" or "bureaucracy versus free enterprise" that you might want to use to simplify a large number of government policy decisions.

>>203
Socialism is Communism before they take your guns away.

>>186
The US has BEEN socialistic already, the only thing keeping us from becoming a communist state is the corporatism which i perfer WAY more than the former, not that it says much because its like choosing to cut your finger instead of your hand.
Ah, Americans. Always using hyperbole and terms that don't understand to make their point.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/

I'll give a gold star to somebody, if this person reads the previous article completely .

Socialism is the only way to make people equal. Equally poor that is.

>>40
"Society also benefits from regulations. Safety regulations make sure that the ham on your sandwich is safe (though the US could do with tighter regulations on food)"

The FDA does not give 2 shits about your ham sandwich. ("It could do with TIGHTER REGULATION" is the knife in your own back.) You want tighter regulation? They'd love a chance to tax you more, so Tyson can pay off the Lobbyists to pass their shitty meat into costco. Do you know how much money is poured into the FDA each year? It's become an extremely rich orgy with Bureaucrats paid for by huge drug and food companies. The food and drug companies essentially WRITE the legistlation. All safe under the guise of legality perpetuated by statist thought.
Off the top of my head, companies in a free market could prove to consumers that their meat was safe by conducting reputable private company tests. Or, retail food stores could only accept meat that has gone through sufficient testing. Bam,I just created thousands of FREE MARKET jobs for the private sector (inspection companies).  Why in the hell are we paying millions to bureaucrats and lobbyists to keep us SAFE, when they are the exact reason for companies like MONSANTO

>>209
Sure... just like how those bond rating agencies did such a good job protecting us from the financial crisis.

Private companies have demonstrated time and time again that when push comes to shove they only care about one thing. Making money. If you give them the responsibility of regulating something, they will only do what's right if it happens to be profitable. Profit is their entire reason for existing. Government's reason for existing is to protect its people.

retail food stores could only accept meat that has gone through sufficient testing...
Great. Until the industry figures out that doing cheaper tests and letting some bad meat go through saves more money than the resulting lawsuits cost.

>>209
FDAMONSANTO
I'll readily admit that the FDA as it stands needs reform, and this is also a big reason why I support whistleblowers when even government doesn't regulate things correctly. Dismantling government and regulatory agencies is not the answer. Also what >>210 said.

>>210
>>211
1 private company heavily influenced and regulated by the state failed therefore 100% of private companies are failures and the free market is worse than state planning 100% of the time

When a private company fails it becomes obvious quickly (enron's scandal was discovered by the market, not government regulators) and usually the capitalist system facilitates it's decline with the company downsizing or liquidating depending on the nature of the problem.

When a government institution fails it's far easier to cover up or excuse and if a flaw ever surfaces it usually only results in a resignation and some token reforms, sometimes it results in more funding ostensibly because the insitution failed due to lack of funding.

To be quiet honest Monsanto should be givn free reign to do whatever they want, genetic modification is the future and the best thing for concscious life is to advance technology as quickly as possible. You obviously don't have your priorities straight if you think some communist revolution will solve everything. We need to help corporations like this advance science.

>>212

When a private company fails it becomes obvious quickly...
Really? How many Enrons do you think there are that got away Scott free? How about PG&E? They gave people cancer for years before they got caught. Once you make money the only force driving things people get fucked.

1 private company heavily influenced and regulated by the state failed therefore 100% of private companies are failures and the free market is worse than state planning 100% of the time
Don't be retarded. I never said that.

>>213
Enrons
Many Enrons get away scot free, the state is pretty much handing taxpayer dollars to banks through bailouts and quantitative easing at this point.

PG&E
They failed to prevent PG&E from dumping carcinogens into groundwater and they've still failed to ban sodium nitrate. Open to alternatives yet?

Don't be retarded. I never said that.
Don't be retarded. I know you never said that, I was just illustrating the limitations of your example there. The point is to take a pace back and look at the bigger picture right here. Easy credit has a highly visible positive effect on well publicized businesses while having an indirect and greater negative impact on the rest of the economy, these financial privileges have to pass through a few select banks before they reach individuals and businesses which means most people will never have the opportunity to gain the same returns on their savings that Buffets and Soroses have no matter how well researched their investments, it also means Goldman Sachses have the leg room to speculate and invest in things like Enron based on their previous stock performance rather than economics. With no state sanctioned monopolies or cartels the market for capital would be highly competitive with little room for the speculation pyramid schemes depend on and stock traders and banks would get to this point quicker.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/13/news/companies/enronoriginal_fortune/index.htm?postversion=2006011818

It's time for #opG.Sachs

>>208

Money is only worth as much as what it can be compared to. If there are no poor or middle class people for the rich to be compared to, the rich are no longer rich.

So yes, everyone being "poor" is better than the fucked up status quo.

>>199

So where the fuck is all of their crime and unemployment?

>>216
>"So yes, everyone being "poor" is better than the fucked up status quo."
pretty much sums up the socialist viewpoint; they'll rather have mass poverty and starvation than to see someone do better than them, because heaven forbid somebody actually work hard and earn a decent living rather than sit around and ask for free handouts

>So yes, everyone being "poor" is better than the fucked up status quo.

The middle class might want to discuss this with you. It might be a bit painful for you. You need to stop hanging out at the OWS tard fests. No, really.

they'll rather have mass poverty and starvation than to see someone do better than them
delusional strawman faggotry detected

>>216
Wouldn't it be better if everyone were middle class? Middle classes generally invest in mutual funds and keep healthy bank balances, is that not "owning the means of production"? If everyone were middle class wouldn't that fulfil the socialist objective of the masses owning the means of production?

Or isn't that good enough for you? Are you going to continue to insist the means of production are owned "collectively" through some socialist political party because the idea of allowing someone individual freedom is offensive to you?

During the Cold War all of the great American achievements weren't done by its private companies, but by its government. GO CAPITALISM! TAKE THAT COMMIES!

Get your head out of your ass. We don't live in a meritocracy. There is no such thing as giving yourself a promotion.

>>44

Which is why it's nowhere in the Constitution.

>>221
Increase the nation's wealth. Increase the quality of living. Create more non-government jobs. Eliminate the need for people to be dependent on the government.

>>75

Two days after the United States announced its intention to launch an artificial satellite, on July 31, 1956, the Soviet Union announced its intention to do the same. Sputnik 1 was launched on October 4, 1957, beating the United States and stunning people all over the world.

The Soviet space program pioneered many aspects of space exploration:

    1957: First intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-7 Semyorka
    1957: First satellite, Sputnik 1
    1957: First animal in Earth orbit, the dog Laika on Sputnik 2
    1959: First rocket ignition in Earth orbit, first man-made object to escape Earth's gravity, Luna 1
    1959: First data communications, or telemetry, to and from outer space, Luna 1.
    1959: First man-made object to pass near the Moon, first man-made object in Heliocentric orbit, Luna 1
    1959: First probe to impact the Moon, Luna 2
    1959: First images of the moon's far side, Luna 3
    1960: First animals to safely return from Earth orbit, the dogs Belka and Strelka on Sputnik 5.
    1961: First probe launched to Venus, Venera 1
    1961: First person in space (International definition) and in Earth orbit, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, Vostok programme
    1961: First person to spend over 24 hours in space Gherman Titov, Vostok 2 (also first person to sleep in space).
    1962: First dual manned spaceflight, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
    1962: First probe launched to Mars, Mars 1
    1963: First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6
    1964: First multi-person crew (3), Voskhod 1
    1965: First extra-vehicular activity (EVA), by Aleksei Leonov, Voskhod 2
    1965: First probe to hit another planet of the Solar system (Venus), Venera 3
    1966: First probe to make a soft landing on and transmit from the surface of the moon, Luna 9
    1966: First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10
    1967: First unmanned rendezvous and docking, Cosmos 186/Cosmos 188. (Until 2006, this had remained the only major space achievement that the US had not duplicated.)
    1969: First docking between two manned craft in Earth orbit and exchange of crews, Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5
    1970: First soil samples automatically extracted and returned to Earth from another celestial body, Luna 16
    1970: First robotic space rover, Lunokhod 1 on the Moon.
    1970: First data received from the surface of another planet of the Solar system (Venus), Venera 7
    1971: First space station, Salyut 1
    1971: First probe to reach surface and make soft landing on Mars, Mars 2
    1975: First probe to orbit Venus, to make soft landing on Venus, first photos from surface of Venus, Venera 9
    1980: First Hispanic and Black person in space, Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez on Soyuz 38
    1984: First woman to walk in space, Svetlana Savitskaya (Salyut 7 space station)
    1986: First crew to visit two separate space stations (Mir and Salyut 7)
    1986: First probes to deploy robotic balloons into Venus atmosphere and to return pictures of a comet during close flyby Vega 1, Vega 2
    1986: First permanently manned space station, Mir, 1986–2001, with permanent presence on board (1989–1999)
    1987: First crew to spend over one year in space, Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov on board of Soyuz TM-4 - Mir

DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS COMPETING WITH THE SOVIET UNION? IT WAS THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, THE STATE! NOT "THE FREE MARKET".

>>80

How has Russia been today?

A globalist capitalist's solution to starving people is to send them McDonald's burgers.

A socialist's solution is to send them seeds and agricultural consultants.

>>116

^

>>125

So how the fuck is anti-statism "conservative"?

I thought this place would be dead because of /pol/

>>232
You thought wrong nigger.

>>233
great one liner

>>81
They are essentially the same thing, the social democracy pushes the communist cancer with the open approval of gullible brainwashed school age sorts and all the hordes of non-whites living on welfare.
Massive third world immigration has never been part and parcel of any "communist state" that's ever existed. Even the former Soviet Union didn't have a program of such; the only non-whites in the Soviet Union were from populations of the central Asian republics, and Muslim migrants from the pre-Soviet days centuries ago. Oh, and also the occasional African black Marxists who would study in Soviet universities and then go back to their own countries as political agitators.

In summation, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to critique left-wing politics, at least know what the fuck you're talking about in the first place, not from what some dipshit told you on Stormfront/VNN/whateverforumyouusethisweek

>>235

Exactly. Capitalism and globalization are responsible for the mass exodus of peoples from one country to another. Not socialism or communism.

>>236
So we should all go communism? Derp.

>>237
Well, this is where the bullshit semantics come into play. Some form of statism and protectionism is required to protect domestic people and domestic markets. Does it have to follow every tenet of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto? Of course not, will it coincidentally follow some of the tenets? Yes.

>>238
What tenets? Before you answer consider the fact that Marx often redefined the obvious (rich people own more things) or made invalid assertions (working smart isn't real work) and so in either case it's innocuous to claim you are following his tenets.

>>9
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism
>"system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest."
...which is going to happen whether there's a state or not, and thereby I reckon the word you're looking for is "fascism" instead of "corporatism."
Q.E.D.:
>Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism. Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities. Aside from humans, certain animal species are known to exhibit strong corporate social organization, such as penguins.

>>240
The problem is corporations are private. I'm not bothered by the fact I can never join a penguin "corporation", I'm troubled by the exclusive privileges given to board members of fortune 500 companies, I want to force them to compete with scientists and entrepeneurs who are far better than them. I don't care if they retire with their billions, I just want to strip them of their authority and see them compete on a level playing field.

>>229
Yeah, indeed the irony of most capitalists is that, while they respect the right of all people to be capitalists, they don't want all people be capitalists.

>>241
>I just want to strip them of their authority and see them compete on a level playing field.
That would be stripping them of their rightful discretions over their own property/possessions. I suppose, a way around this, would be to prohibiting them from investing to begin with, or something, which is weird.

>>232
I started using "dis," when it was up while "boards" was down, now I'm slightly hooked because threads die too quickly on the image boards due to abundant and frequent creations of new threads.

>>243
They should not be prohibited from investing or exercising controlling stakes if that is what the majority of shareholders want, I merely wish to strip corporations of any advantages confered onto them by the state. When bloomberg has headlines like this I don't think anyone is debating whether market forces are under threat.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

There are also a plethora of privileges outside the financial sector.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
http://www.suntimes.com/5754016-417/former-mayor-daleys-son-profited-after-airport-wi-fi-deal.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml

You or I will never be able to receive all this cheap credit, favorable laws and insider information, this is not competition, in fact it's technically communism.

Progressive Capitalism is fine.

We are often told that the rich somehow work with their minds; that they are great innovators. This is usually a lie. The majority of the rich do not innovate. They hire people to innovate for them – just like they hire people to make things for them.

Think of the building of homes, for example, which is one of the largest industries in the U.S. Who builds houses? Construction workers. Who designs the houses and invents new ways to build them? Architects, who are also workers. And what do the owners and CEOs of real estate conglomerates contribute to all this? Absolutely nothing.

Just look around you. Chances are that all the objects you can see right now were built by low-income workers employed in factories and designed or invented by middle-income workers employed in corporate research and development departments. Their rich bosses had almost nothing to do with it--they just profited from other people's work.

>>217

THIS

>>247
>>248
Don't start tripping on me because I'm not apologising for the current status quo, I'm just saying what has to be said. Capital allocation or "ownership over the means of production" is work, you have to figure out what the best investments are so that the profits are greater than inflation and taxation, even if this means allocating capital into a hedge fund (or mutual fund or bank) to allocate the capital for you, essentially that's still a form of capital allocation.

The problem is lack of competition, without arbitrary restrictions on competition there would be no cartel of investment banks like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, the service of capital allocation would also be far more efficient resulting in more entrepeneurship, more effective investment in research and a better ability to handle economic diversification and sophistication, all of which resulting in more jobs in the long term and generally ending the waste of trillions on bubbles and white elephants. Also their wages would be driven down to upper-middle class levels while hedge funds would run on gas until their owners die, which is what you were more interested in I suppose.

So we really need to exterminate keynesian economics and it's offshoots which are essentially a set of logical fallacies that give the state the political capital it needs to get away with this massive scam. For instance a common logical fallacy is the belief that regulations which are essentially kickbacks by investment banksters are the same as regulations for public safety and to prevent fraud, obviously the solution is to make the distinction clear so people can see that these particular regulations are not in their interest even if other regulations are.

>So we really need to exterminate keynesian economics
Yes. Black hole economics is fail.

http://klnk.de/bestvideo

ITT we want to abolish the business cycle.  Lulz.

>>217
I pretty much took care of that.

In capitalism nothing is regulated.

Therefore nothing is guaranteed.

Therefore nothing is earned.

Therefore nothing involves merit.

Therefore nothing is fair.

In capitalism nothing is regulated.

Therefore nothing is guaranteed.

Therefore nothing is automatic.

Therefore nothing is absolute.

Therefore nothing is earned.

Therefore nothing involves merit.

Therefore nothing is fair.

>>255

Socialism, on the other hand, wants to take money from people who work and give it to people who don't. Thanks but I'll keep my capitalism.

>>256

That's why it's illegal to be unemployed in communism.

>>256

You will keep your capitalism because it's benefiting you, you fucking cheating crook who pretends to have "worked his ass off".

>>258
I work at a supermarket for 6 days a week. I probably earn less money a month than you do a week.

>>257
At the cost of improving automation technology.

>>255
Are you trying to string together as many non-sequiturs as possible? Capitalism doesn't even necessitate that there be no regulation, so even your basic premise is flawed.

>>258
Implying that someone is a benefit spongers based on no evidence what-so-ever? Not exactly breaking the mould on desperate retorts today. I think I'll keep capitalism because I am rewarded on merit, not on my sense of entitlement and dependence.

Capitalists want to create a world with no public property so stepping outside of your own home will be illegal because you'll be trespassing on someone else's private property. There will be no public roads, no public sidewalks, no public parks, no public police, no public fire fighters, no publicly owned utilities, etc.

Prove me wrong.

In capitalism the people who already own the capital and private property have the "freedom" to do business with whoever they want for any reason they want with no regard to the merit or intelligence of their potential employees.

Nothing is regulated. Therefore nothing in the economy is "automatic". Therefore nothing is guaranteed. Therefore nothing is earned. Therefore nothing involves merit. Therefore nothing is fair.

>Prove me wrong.
Okay: public roads exist; sidewalks are tended to by the adjacent property owner typically, with help from public utilities, but are public enough; public parks exist.  I don't know what the heck a "public police" or a "public firefighter" is so I can't counter that one without feeling silly, but there are police and firefighters.

>Nothing is regulated. Therefore nothing in the economy is "automatic". Therefore nothing is guaranteed. Therefore nothing is earned. Therefore nothing involves merit. Therefore nothing is fair.
You lost me at "nothing is earned."  If it were automatic and guaranteed, how would something be "earned?" you'd get it whether or not there was merit or whether it was fair that you'd be (able to) get it.

>>261
Ridiculous, no one profits from such a scenario.

And once again, your basic "nothing is regulated" premise is flawed and again, followed by a string of non-sequiturs.

>>1
You're always free to open a commune, where everything will be in common use. You can even emit your own money (U.S. law allows that).

Nice copypaste OP, I saw it posted on other forums. Capitalism is the idea that your right to own property is sacred and nothing more than that.

You can't blame Capitalism for the bad decisions of your government.

>Capitalism didn't exist until the late 19th century.

>Supporting capitalism is "conservative".

>Capitalism is "human nature".

capitalism is when the jews import national minorities, which rob you, rape your wife and beat your son.

communism is when only the jews, national minorities and mongrels can get any important and profitable job. mongrels and interracial marriages are also receive bonuses from government.

socialism is when the jews and the niggers live on welfare and you serve them for free.

nazism is when you are allowed to send the jews and the national minorities into a gas chamber.

>>267
I see we are graced with the presence of a real professor of political and economic philosophy here.

>>268
lol why usomad faget?

>>269
Not mad, disappointed. Your move, Genius.

　　　　|┃三　　　　 , -.―――--.､
　　　　|┃三　　　 ,ｲ,,i､ﾘ,,リ,,ﾉﾉ,,;;;;;;;;ヽ
　　　　|┃　　　　.i;}'　　　　　　　"ﾐ;;;;:}
　　　　|┃　　　　|} ,,..､_､　 , _,,,..､ 　|;;;:|
　　　　|┃　≡ 　|} ,_tｭ,〈 　ﾋ''tｭ_　 i;;;;|
　　　　|┃　　　　|　 ｰ'　|　｀ - 　 　 ﾄ'{
　　　　|┃　　　.｢|　　 ｲ_i _ >､ 　 　 }〉}　　　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
　　　　|┃三　　｀{|　_;;iill|||;|||llii;;,>､　.!-'　　　／
　　　　|┃　　　　 |　　 　＝'" 　 　 | 　　　＜　　I've heard all the discussion.
　　　　|┃　　　 　 iﾞ ､_　　ﾞ,,,　 ,,　' {　　　　　＼　 Send >>1 to Siberia !
　　　　|┃　　　　丿＼　￣￣　 _,,-"ヽ　　　　　＼
　　　　|┃　≡'"~ヽ　　＼､_;;,..-" ＿　,i`ー-　　 　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　|┃　　　　 ヽ､oヽ/ ＼　 /o/　 | 　　 ガラッ

freemarketfascism.org

Ah, don't worry about it. We have a guy here who spams Jew hate into every single thread without any rhyme or reason.

>>273
So as long as his Jew hate rhymed, it would be ok?

>>273
Everyone has a reason to hate Jews: Chinese hate Jews for opium trade and famines; Europeans hate Jews for infiltrating their countries and seizing everything; Arabs hate Jews for amorality and every single war in middle east; Koreans hate Jews for butchering Korea in half; Germans hate Jews for lost World Wars, Weimar Republic and reparations; Japanese hate Jews for nuclear bombing and lost WW2; Slavs hate Jews for every misfortune since year 988. Even Christianity and Islam are the reasons to hate Jews, if you're a Pagan or an Atheist: Jews killed millions of pagans back then.

>>275
Weimar Republic had to take enormous loans from the USA Jewish bankers to pay reparations and also pay in the form of coal, iron and other resources. As a result, there was a shortage of coal in Germany. Commoners didn’t have enough coal for heating and cooking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jErPv19Zu1M

>>277
Nice association of Jews with mouses.