ITT

ITT
Libertarian cringe

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HRdHxJOXyMk
youtube.com/watch?v=SrOG9122JoQ
youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg
np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/6n186g/calculating_capitalisms_death_toll/
beinglibertarian.com/do-you-have-the-right-to-discriminate/
investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism
mint.com/barter-system-history-the-past-and-present
mises.org/library/what-free-market.
youtu.be/DrNqkItxUEs
cbo.gov/publication/49440).
forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/03/01/rags-to-riches-2016-wealthiest-self-made-billionaires/&refURL=https://www.google.ca/&referrer=https://www.google.ca/.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson#Early_life_and_education
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge
fundersandfounders.com/how-much-sweat-it-takes-from-zero-to-billionaire/.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400.
cbo.gov/publication/49440
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

lol

ITS

H
A
P
P
E
N
N
I
N
G

...

...

And if the daughter turns out to be a dyke, you get cucked by a women!
OHHH NOOOOOO

Tired : wanting to fuck children
Wired : wanting to fuck your own children

...

Right-Libraterians don’t understand that Egoists are anti-privet property. How stupid can they be?

These faggots did the same thing with Orwell and 1984 until they discovered he was actually a socialist. Don't worry, Stirner will be off that list eventually if we meme him hard enough.

What's in "a spontaneous order"?

...

That bitch is guy is dumb as hell. An IDPOL obsessed moron

Usually, I am in support of LGBTQRSTUVGTAVAK-47 rights, But I make an exception for him.
He goes up against the wall.

Shit I said
"that bitch is guy is dumb as hell"
That's fucking retarded.

I was trying to say:

*That guy is dumb as hell

not surprised

The mental deficiency is strong with that one.

obvious fake shit

...

Fresh off the debate

they're retards. period.

Why do ayncraps always resort to "I haven't figured it out" bullshit? Jfc at least don't embarrass yourself and create a solid theory.

jesus fucking christ

...

That's it. That is officially the stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire fucking life.

And I've read the entirety of Truthism.

what do you expect. this dumb soccer mom suburbia christian bitch is terrified of witchraft and evil communism. she knows nothing about marxist theory so she just assumes marx was a wizard who tried to get people to hate god

...

I looked that one up, it's definitely a troll.

HAAH WAAW

...

Dutchfag here, Pim Fortuyn was the Netherland's most succesful Marxist :^)

I like how ancaps peddle these half-truths but when you show them the actual graphs and charts they just shrug it off

The Road to Serfdom is literally the worst collection of non-arguments ever assembled. It's basically on the same level as a YouTuber """debunking""" Marxism, it's difficult for me to really articulate the poor quality of it here, it is word for word every anti-communist platitude you've ever heard spewn on Facebook.

there's no way hoppean snake isn't satire, i will never believe otherwise.

I'm a brainlet pls explain

Ben Garrison tried to warn us

every single "Hoppean snek" meme

youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg
Do you agree?

Libertarians lol

goat cheese is dank as fuck ben garrison is not my nigga

They've already got one

...

Capitalism then(Founding Fathers): No Taxation without representation
Last century(Austrian School): No Taxation
Today(Hoppesian/Pinoshit Capitalists): No

...

really makes you think

why am i like this

...

...

you really think people would just lie about stories on the internet?

Honestly speaking, he is right.

Daughters should only be for yourself. If you didn't ingrain an EXTREME electra complex into your daughter, if her deepest and most intensely desired wish isn't to be daddy's good girl, you did it wrong.

Cuckold dance

...

the road to serfdom is built upon the extremely distracting implication that democracy = capitalism and dictatorship = communism

neither were kulaks

np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/6n186g/calculating_capitalisms_death_toll/

This entire thread

...

...

republican anti-socialist dumb-dumb american fearmongering is the worst.

is it just me or do they look similar?

...

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA

...

...

...

What a fucking clown

"being an attractive young woman…"

...

Well, some say Hegel is a sorcerer of sorts :^)

how the fuck does my country produce such retards

beinglibertarian.com/do-you-have-the-right-to-discriminate/

Is CWC Nazbol?

...

i would genuinely love to meet this man

.

Falangism of all facsim? Really?

thanks fam I've been looking for this one since it was scrubbed off of google images

First one is fake, second one probably is.

where have i seen this before?

Post more aryan beauties

I died a bit inside

Furries and horsefuckers must rot in a pit full of corpses.

coming out of the closet takes courage

Holy fuck, the hero worship some of these autistic little queers do when it comes to their favourite le rationalist skeptic YouTubers is pathetic. I'd be nothing short of embarrassed if I was any of the people in that second pic.

you don't know the half of it

LOL The EDL are classical liberals™ now???

Ancaps not realizing that National Syndicalism is incompatible with Anarco-Capitalism.

In the second picture who's the guy lying on the floor

A certain faggot who used to work for Breitbard, but got sacked after advocating for paedophilia on The Drunken Peasants podcast.

Hero worship? Rationalist skeptics don't engage in such puerile behavior.

It's more like liberals are EDL now.

Yeah, the Overton window's shifted waaay to the right these past few years. People who woulda taken the piss outta somebody like Donny Tiny Hands a couple years back are now acting like his PR managers.

This.

Honestly when arguing with pro-capitalists (inb4 durr moochualizmz diet capitalizmz) I ask them why is a capitalist necessary? If we replace the capital with a sort of mutual banking system why do we need a capitalist? I've NEVER gotten an answer and it's helped me win people over to far right market socialism but hey at least it's a start.

96% of Molyneux's videos

...

Link me some of the 4%

As is tradition, this edit must accompany that.

Not an argument

Not an argument

Still not an argument. See: investopedia.com/terms/s/self-employed.asp

80% of small businesses fail. Also you need capital to start one anyway, which brings us back to the original problem inherent to capitalism. Also

hunting meat and picking berries isnt the same as being forced to pay a land owner for the right to pick berries or hunt meat

are you literally retarded?

[citation needed]
It's actually all businesses, not simply small businesses. But the onus is on you, so see above.
Woah, almost as if people aren't equal right off the bat…
Missing the point completely. The point is that exerting some effort into acquiring sustenance isn't oppressive and presupposing entitlement is not supported by any stretch of the imagination.

[citation needed]
Also
Still not an argument AND you missed the point of the image. It's to point out that your boogeyman is just a conspiracy in order to save a failing system of beliefs.

Land ownership is not natural idiot.

Nobody said it is. I said that you cannot do what you want on land you don't own. Nothing in that statement makes a claim as to the origin of ownership. Keep projecting, though, it's really funny.

but you did imply that land ownership was a legitimate concept.

I find American right wing libertarians fascinating. It's like most of them want to be fascists but for some reason can't bring themselves to fully embrace it so they instead attempt to force themselves to become social darwinists even though they clearly do value certain spooks over others.

Bingo! Now you're getting it, kind of. I never said it was legitimate, you are arbitrarily injecting your pathetic morals onto an amoral institution. Land ownership occurs because I say so. I make a claim to power and defend it from yours, or my village does, which grows into my district, town, city, etc. I guarantee what happens with what I protect because I can trump your claims to power with mine.

This is just like 'imperialism' all over again. Not an applicable term, and, like Orwell said, "It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

I've noticed this too. Usually they're the same "gas the kikes Nazi masturbation fantasy now 14/88" bunch you find on Holla Forums, except they love neoliberal capitalism simply too much to even ironically shill for fascism. Though they find the middle ground in obsessing over Pinochet, just about right amount of edgyness without too much stigma.

Why do ancaps try to present themselves as anarcho-pacifists when they are just as supporting of violence as everyone else? That's what I find annoying about ancaps. You can see the hypocrisy yet they can't.

Nobody states this. Keep on attacking positions nobody makes, though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism

You alluded to how anarcho-capitalists espouse the ideals, not that the beliefs exist, full stop.

Is it bad I hate libertarians more than fascists. At least fascists pretend to care about the poor. Libertarianism is like kicking people when they are down

Then stand up.
Nice conspiracies, m8.

Fascism is the libertarian response to economic crisis.

I didn't allude to anything if you'd look at my flag you would notice i'm not the same person also the person claimed that often ancaps persent themselves as pacifistic key word present that of course does not mean that they are necessarily pacifists.

Well yeah we are. It's the first and last of our shackles.

Then we agree that the 'presentation' is irrelevant to the truth.

No, you aren't. 'Nature' doesn't oppress you if you fail, you fail yourself. If you starve because you cannot compete, then you have failed. Appealing to some boogeyman conspiracy isn't a great argument when you have no evidence to show your claim to be valid.

Why does this keep happening? Why is this a thing? This isn't right, Holla Forums fucking hated furries more than black people just last year, I don't understand.

If other people buy up all the resources and restrict your access to them then they are oppressing you.
Modern technology has made competition no longer necessary to acquire resources.

Bloody hell I wish that's how things worked

okay, user.
Have you even read your own image?

You don't deserve it. It isn't oppressive if you cannot substantiate your just claim to deserve it in the first place.
Quite the opposite, actually.

It's just an extension to what implications mean to the truth. It's not representative.

Ya but lyke joo see, even ifn dey takin all da moneyz, an da foodz, an da armiez, an da jobz, an da gubbermintz, all joo godda doo iz 2 BOY GUNZ BRUH an den joo iz a FREEMAN, but ONLY if joo is violating eggzacktly NO NAPS

Hitler privatized the economy and preserved private property rights. He doesn't even fit the Cenk Uygur meme definition of socialism.

unironically read stirner. Why does the person who currently owns the land deserve it?

Well, that's because even the Nazis realized markets are necessary for civilization and trade to exist.
Because they defend it. They are superior in might to the inferiors (read: you). Hence you cannot defend your claim to property, whether to keep it for yourself or to abolish it. So you lose, as you have, time and time again.
Also, that's secondary to the point. If they buy up resources, that is what they do with their own money. Unless you can prove it is your money, or take it from them and burn it or whatever you wish, your claim is dismissed as irrelevant. Which it is, because you can complain all day long on some anonymous forum about how trade is literally ebil boogeymen and so on, it will still occur. Ought-is fallacy, really.

Is that my truth or your truth?

I never claimed it, so whoever did must cite some academics who purport such 'presentations' of themselves/their politics.

Markets are an ancient middle eastern trick to make you give someone else a lot of what you have for a little bit of what they have. It's the longest running scam in the history of humanity.

Bartering goods determined by the consuming party… on a market. Just because you lack currency does not mean trade cannot occur between individuals.
This is why Communism has failed, because it relies on weird conspiracies nobody can prove, like some ebil scheme or trick.

except the rich don't do jack to defend their property. They have to rely on the state to do that.

Their money that was created through the exploitation of others, exploitation that was only made possible through the power of the state.

...

Gee that wasn't hard:
mint.com/barter-system-history-the-past-and-present

It is still defended. The state "defends" private property by taxing it.
Also
Courts and arbiters who pass down verdicts aren't the only way to defend private property.
Nobody is exploited, it is a fantasy, just like weird 'market trickery' from the ME. Exploitation presupposes ownership, which cannot be proven. You don't own the chair 'you' make because you never made it. And you already signed off on it.

It is explained in-depth what a free market is: mises.org/library/what-free-market.

So where's the conspiratorial 'trickery'?

Jeffrey Tucker often paints the movement as being that of a peace loving purely economic arrangement as seem between individuals and the free flowing of capital.
In Rothbards 1963 essay he promotes anarcho-capitalism as being key to a peacful society essay and short video summary to be found here
youtu.be/DrNqkItxUEs
Of course this presentation conflicts rather neetly with his lust for the police to bring down justice on the "bums" of society

just curious, what would actual exploitation look like to you mr cites mises.org as a legitimate source of information?

Ahh yeah had nothing to do with military interventionism on behalf of the United States and other capitalist nations literally kill yourself lmao

Free trade is key to a peaceful society. Freedom to trade with other individuals who volunteer to do so isn't unique to only anarcho-capitalism. That is just one facet of many beliefs.
[citation needed]
Try again. Capitalism is a system of economic ownership, not a method for some state to run things.

There's that genetic fallacy I warned of.
I'll take your complete side-step of my point as an admission to its validity.

Woah… so you're saying that capitalism succeeded in defending itself against Communism, but not the reverse? We truly know the superior system that could defend itself, then…

It's self evident.

The consumers have battled for better trading and better labor value for centuries, but the core concept remains the same: work your goddamn ass off, get a few basic necessities from the people who never had to work because they coerced or bought their way - or were born - into power

free trade under capitalism is itself an act of violence.
economic ownership which requires the existence of a state to exist and which influences the way that the state functions.
you have no point and you haven't proven that exploitation doesn't occur.
tfw poor south asian rice farmers with no infrastructure halfway across the world are an existential threat to American capitalism.
tfw landless peasants in latin america with no formal education are an existential threat to American capitalism.
tfw other capitalists in the middle east who advocate minor redistributive social reforms to help their own people are an existential threat to American capitalism.

One I thought that was le not true capitalism to you lot? Also if you really think a group of peasant farmers who where socialists deserved to be murdered by US backed death squads then please refer back to my previous statement and kill yourself, also I didn't know that armies that are backed by and funded by the state are an example of your system winning out now are they. Dear god how can someone be so stupid holy shit.

Point me to an example where this is the case? Usually, there is a welfare state, at least in the West, that takes from the rich and gives to the poor (cbo.gov/publication/49440). So you don't actually die of thirst or anything.
Oh, and people have and always will suffer. You want to end poverty, stop having kids when you can't afford them or stop making poor decisions with your finances, like wasting funds needlessly.
Also, the statement is still true: you don't own the water, it isn't yours. Without justifying or defending your claim to ownership, it is dismissed.
Well, actually the majority of the world's billionaires are self-made. They never inherited anything. Around two-thirds, I believe. In the US, it was just the heirs to Wal-Mart and Mars that inherited their wealth. The rest, like Adelson, were in the same position you just described.

Like I said above: you don't own the water, it isn't yours. Without justifying or defending your claim to ownership, it is dismissed. I can do with the assets I can protect, or have proxies that I vote to protect for me, as I please.
[citation needed]
Any academically accepted definition of capitalism always relates to the private ownership, unrestricted by foreign entities, of the means of production. I've already cited the article above debunking this old canard.
Onus is on you to substantiate your boogeyman's existence.
Woah… so this is the result of Communism.

Did the private owners control the means of production?
Pretty sure the war was fought on both sides, but I guess your point just goes to show how superior capitalist armies completely dominate and decimate any socialist opposition, to the point that it might as well be an open slaughter. Kind of debunks your own point above, though… oops…
Try harder, this is too easy.

...

Ever visit Flint Michigan?
For the last time, where's your claim to ownership? In a state of nature no one owns the water supply. Property, like Proudhon said, is an impossibility. No claim to ownership is legitimate.
So don't complain when you fail to protect your assets and get put up against the wall, ok?
Private Property literally cannot exist without a state are you even listening?
I perform the labor, my boss takes away the wealth that was generated. That is exploitation and that is the fundamental basis of capitalism.
my point was that almost none of the people killed by the west in the name of anti-communism were even communists, much less an enemy that needs to be murdered.

Context matters, so your genocidal dictator canard is dismissed.

The peasents where attacked first in Nicaragua or El-Salvador or Chille not the other way round dipshit they where the ones doing the defending. Oh how did your superior capitalist army do in the vietnam war by the way? Also I love how you can claim the army which is payed for and set up by the state is now on your side even though your an ancap.
Kill yourself i'm not even joking just do it loud and do it proud faggot

We agree, let's allow private contractors to conduct their business free from state control.
It is evident in the fact that no worker's revolution has ever been attained in the West, which has out-lasted the revolutionaries. The deed to ownership, backed by courts, backed by state authorities. Really simple. Ought-is, the 'legitimacy' is irrelevant, it is simply a matter of might of the powerful versus the inferior. I don't go up to Wal-Mart and say "I own the land the shop is on" without force. They have the security kick me out because I cannot defend my claim. It is fundamentally focused on might, not morals.
I'm sorry, but LARPing isn't an argument. You can point to no successful implementation that wasn't either brought down by your imperialist boogeymen you cannot substantiate or the systems own internal inconsistencies/failures.
Woah… states really do love private property so much so that they tax small businesses into non-existence… wonder if we can catch a glimpse of that protection when you refuse to pay taxes…
They were even Communists? Then we agree.

S M A L L L O A N O F A M I L L I O N D O L L A R S

You do not go from minimum wage to Forbes 500. It does not happen. Not unless you know the right people or blackmail your way to the top. I know countless people that have worked the same dead end job for DECADES and their lives are just as shitty as mine. I myself have fucking worked myself to the bone, pulling maaany 35+ hour shifts (I was a contractor at the time) and I still live below the poverty line.

Unless you are willing to crack a few million eggs and play a very dirty game, you will NEVER become rich. That is the truth of capitalism.

I was going to type out an argument but i changed my mind, heed this tankie's advice and live stream your suicide

[citation needed]
Source your claims, you can't just make a claim to historical truth without backing it up.
Employed by which private company?
Appeal to motivation. Not an argument.

Don't believe me? Source: forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/03/01/rags-to-riches-2016-wealthiest-self-made-billionaires/&refURL=https://www.google.ca/&referrer=https://www.google.ca/.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson#Early_life_and_education
Come again? Try addressing the argument: the majority of the billionaires did not inherit their wealth.
Nice unverifiable claim. Too bad you lack any evidence to validate it…
Don't have any marketable skills? Then suffer like the failure you claim you are.
Yet you can still afford an Internet connection. Keep on sipping those luxuries you totally need.

Excellent contribution, well-sourced. Try a little harder, it is really easy to dismiss non-arguments when you put in this amount of effort.

You are arguing with a familiar sophist here. Read Plato, specifically what Socrates does with Thrasymachus the sophist.

So successful
Also, excellent contribution. Attack the character without adding anything of substance. Facts still stay true: majority of the wealthy upper-class did not inherit their wealth. Must kind of tear apart at you that evidence debunks your wild conspiracies about reality, though… ouch…

America is the one who invaded those countries. America is the one who propped up dictators and took the natural resources there by force. America is the one who initiated the conflicts by enclosing on their land and depriving the people living there of their livelihood.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson#Early_life_and_education
Amazing, he started as a petit-bourgeoisie scumbag and became a bourgeois scumbag. three cheers for social mobility.

Kek, this fucking guy. Kill yourself kiddo.

Haha no, that's not poor, that's middle class, son. The poor cannot afford the bootstraps needed to gain the capital requires to create the snowball.

I pool what I earn together with what the rest of my family earns, and together we afford gas in the generator (because actual electricity is too expensive), gas in a 30 year old truck to get to and from work, food, second hand clothing and cell phones with basic internet packages. When I get sick, I don't go to the doctor because I am too poor. When I have a toothache, I do not go to the dentist because I am too poor. I am very skilled on a computer, but because I was too poor to go to college, nobody will hire me at the rate of pay I deserve in this market.

Capitalism will never give me anything more than scraps because there were the hand I was dealt had a two, a three, two ones and a Joker. There are no bootstraps for me to pull up on, and believe you me I am trying my goddamned hardest. The only time I come online is after my work is done for the day and I am too tired to continue.

But do I spend that time on reddit or buzzfeed? No, I spend it here, preparing for a better way of life that will never come from capitalism. This is my dirty play, my strongarming of the competition: the overthrowing and eating of the rich.

Still, [citation needed]
Well, did the private owners control the means of production? Really simple, yes or no question.
Woah… this is the power of equality…

Excellent argument. Here's a little challenge for you: can you find me a successful implementation of socialism where the workers actually controlled the means of production? I'll wait…

31 replies in a few hours? What happened?

Maybe I have failed, but that doesn't change a thing. All of us have no choice whatsoever but to comply with several biological functions, and failing to do so means death. How is that not oppression by our own biology? We're all prisoners of matter.

Am I being rused?

Yeah I'm being rused. I'm betting you're that ancap troll who argues in circles. That explains the 31 replies.

Did you think that I was going to entertain your idiotic sophistry that you repeat every time you come here to derail threads with this autism? The fact that you respond to this post elucidates something about you: you NEED to bait people.

quest of the golden grail, so the first interpreters of the modern world, the originators of the Monetary System – the Mercantile System is merely a variant of it – declared that gold and silver, i.e., money, alone constitutes wealth. They quite correctly stated that the vocation of bourgeois society was the making of money, and hence, from the standpoint of simple commodity production, the formation of permanent hoards which neither moths nor rust could destroy. It is no refutation of the Monetary System
to point out that a ton of iron whose price is £3 has the same value as £3 in gold. The point at issue is not
the magnitude of the exchange-value, but its adequate form. With regard to the special attention paid by
the Monetary and Mercantile systems to international trade and to individual branches of national labour
that lead directly to international trade, which are regarded by them as the only real source of wealth or
of money, one has to remember that in those times national production was for the most part still carried
on within the framework of feudal forms and served as the immediate source of subsistence for the
producers themselves. Most products did not become commodities; they were accordingly neither
converted into money nor entered at all into the general process of the social metabolism; hence they did
not appear as materialisation of universal abstract labour and did not indeed constitute bourgeois wealth.
Money as the end and object of circulation represents exchange-value or abstract wealth, not any
physical element of wealth, as the determining purpose and driving motive of production.

It's not an assertation, it's a fact. Are you denying that America backed dictatorships existed in Latin America now?
In America? Absolutely.
right, I should be nicer to the billionaire zionist shill whose entire livelihood is dependent on the exploitation of the lower class.
Free Territory in Ukraine.
The early Soviet Union before Bolshevik's latent authoritarianism kicked in.
Spain 1936.
Shinman autonomous region in Korea from that same timeframe.
Rojava today.
Now name a successful example of capitalism where private property existed without causing a major economic collapse every decade or so.

You're some spivvy dipshit arguing in bad faith, you deserve nothing more than being told to fuck off.

Lower income by the standards at that time period. Not destitute poverty, as that is not what is claimed in the wiki article.
Do you live in a metropolis/highly urbanized area in the US? If so, you have nobody but your retarded parents to blame for deciding to have a child when they couldn't afford it.
Daily reminder that champagne socialists are the ultimate and most comical hypocrites of them all.
Then kill yourself. Nobody deserves to give you handouts, just kill yourself. Who cares about your life if you are a self-described failure. You lack any marketable skills and have not succeeded at anything, as you just described, so kill yourself.
Keep on LARPing, buddy. I'm sure some antiquated and debunked ideology will revive itself any day now…

That's the whole point.
Hilarious. I guess all organisms should take up arms against oppressive natural barriers set on competition. That's how natural selection works: inferiors are weeded out.

Onus is on you, my man.

See: appeal to motivation. Try a little harder, this is really easy when you can't formulate any arguments.
Seems like you're making no original thoughts, as it's pretty clear you just copy-pasted a poorly formatted point. I'll debunk it really quick.
And? What of it, compete or die.
Trust determines worth. At least with fiat currency.
An individual can decide to utilize the purchased material in any way he desires. I can purchase millions of tons of wheat and burn it if I wish. Again, this is all just a non-sequitur, not actually addressing the points I've made, but diverting to a topic while making reference to out-dated concepts.

I wish I could borrow $10,000. But the banks screwed everyone over so bad and won't give out a single loan unless you can prove you don't need it.

[citation needed]
You can act conveniently outraged as much as you please, that isn't a citation. I don't doubt that it could be true, but you need to source your claims. Just making empty statements, then saying "p-please believe me… what, you don't! zomg fuck sourced claims" isn't an argument.
How so? What of private property taxes, or subsidized industries? Absolutely no state involvement in the market? Pretty sure taxation existed in the '60's.
Not actually exploiting anybody, because the claims to ownership are dismissed as they lack force to support them.
Actually, the workers never fully controlled the means of production, so it wasn't actually socialist. Seems like all those instances aren't really around anymore, or cannot actually sustain a great population for more than one generation… hmm…
Nice tu quoque. The issue is centred around your claims for workers controlling the means of production, which you've yet to cite beyond empty assertions, again.

Don't blame me if your camp can only endlessly call things socialist when they actually aren't.

Not that $10,000 is enough to start a business with nowadays. Gotta love how the corporate world inflated the dollar for their own gain and then made sure to restrict the common man's income inflation so it was no longer at a 1:1 ratio…but hey, the rich are always angelic saints because they donate 0.001% of proceeds to puppies! It's not their fault, it's the fault of the congressmen they paid for!

That's nice honey, but see:

form of a kind of super-identification with capital at its most
pitilessly predatory, but this need not be the case. In fact,
capitalist realism is very far from precluding a certain anti-
capitalism. After all, and as Žižek has provocatively pointed out,
anti-capitalism is widely disseminated in capitalism. Time after
time, the villain in Hollywood films will turn out to be the 'evil
corporation'. Far from undermining capitalist realism, this
gestural anti-capitalism actually reinforces it. Take Disney/
Pixar's Wall-E (2008). The film shows an earth so despoiled that
human beings are no longer capable of inhabiting it. We're left in
no doubt that consumer capitalism and corporations - or rather
one mega-corporation, Buy n Large - is responsible for this
depredation; and when we see eventually see the human beings
in offworld exile, they are infantile and obese, interacting via
screen interfaces, carried around in large motorized chairs, and
supping indeterminate slop from cups. What we have here is a
vision of control and communication much as Jean Baudrillard
understood it, in which subjugation no longer takes the form of a
subordination to an extrinsic spectacle, but rather invites us to
interact and participate. It seems that the cinema audience is
itself the object of this satire, which prompted some right wing
observers to recoil in disgust, condemning Disney/Pixar for
attacking its own audience. But this kind of irony feeds rather
than challenges capitalist realism. A film like Wall-E exemplifies
what Robert Pfaller has called 'interpassivity': the film performs
our anti-capitalism for us, allowing us to continue to consume with impunity. The role of capitalist ideology is not to make an explicit case for something in the way that propaganda does, but
to conceal the fact that the operations of capital do not depend on
any sort of subjectively assumed belief. It is impossible to
conceive of fascism or Stalinism without propaganda -
but
capitalism can proceed perfectly well, in some ways better,
without anyone making a case for it. Žižek's counsel here
remains invaluable. 'If the concept of ideology is the classic one
in which the illusion is located in knowledge', he argues,
then today's society must appear post-ideological:
the
prevailing ideology is that of cynicism; people no longer
believe in ideological truth; they do not take ideological
propositions seriously. The fundamental level of ideology,
however, is not of an illusion masking the real state of things
but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself. And at this level, we are of course far from being a post-ideological society. Cynical distance is just one way … to blind ourselves to the structural power of ideological fantasy: even if we do not take things seriously, even if we keep an ironical distance, we are still doing them.

...

You are a good man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge
Debunked again. 50>0.001. Try harder.

Thanks, it's really easy to debunk these guys, given how the only historical examples they can point to last a few months. Really funny, actually.

Nicaragua: Both Somoza Sr. and Jr. enjoyed a cozy relationship with the US including close military ties, and favorable economic trade deals. FDR said of Somoza SR that "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's out son of a bitch" In his book "War is a Racket" retired General Smedley Butler discussed his own experiences conducting military operations in the country which were carried out to secure US corporate interests and protect the pro-US factions within the government.
Chile: declassified documents from the CIA covering the Nixon administration reveal an open plot by the US government to subvert the democratically elected left-leaning president Allende. Nixon himself stated that he wanted to "make the economy scream" in order to force an economic crisis that would justify the eventual coup against the president. America was also involved with the assasination of several generals within the Chilean military prior to the coup itself in order to eliminate pro-Allende forces such as general Rene Schneider in the military and position Pinochet to seize power.
Cuba: The Batista dictatorship enjoyed such a close relationship to the US government and American Mafioso that members of his administration would joke about Cuba being the 51st state of the Union. Cuba's primary source of wealth was its luxurious sugar fields which were almost all owned by US corporations. Batista bought weapons to use against the communist guerrillas almost exclusively from the US up until Washington decided that he was likely to lose the war and rescinded their support.
I could go on and on but you see my point. All of this is readily available info.
way to move the goalposts, the means of production in America are still privately owned even if there is state intervention into the market.

Thanking me is not an argument for something someone else did. Why are you such a vile heretic?

much sexual identity that is intrinsically used in the service of the status quo, but rather the dialectic of sexual identity. If libertarianism holds, the works of Fellini are empowering. Therefore, subdialectic nihilism holds that sexuality is part of the genre of language.

the term ‘the capitalist paradigm of reality’ to denote the role of the writer
as reader. But the primary theme of the works of Pynchon is the economy of
neodialectic class.

culture. Marx’s essay on subdialectic nihilism states that the significance of
the artist is significant form. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a
libertarianism that includes truth as a whole.

is not, in fact, discourse, but prediscourse. In The Crying of Lot 49,
Pynchon examines libertarianism; in Mason & Dixon, however, he denies
Debordist image. However, Bataille uses the term ‘libertarianism’ to denote the
fatal flaw, and some would say the paradigm, of neotextual society.

can't find that stirner image I had with him holding up the ancap for milk with a gun because you don't argue or use reason with them. You beat the crap out of them or stick a gun in their face.

Where? Source for the quote?
Page number for this claim? Where was it said in the book?
Source the documents and the quote.
How so? Do you have a source proving their involvement?
That is not nefarious in and of itself.
Which corporations?
Sure, I don't doubt this, but source your claims. You are making assertions, or claims to truth, without properly citing your claims.
The onus is on you to cite your claims. I am not the party who is meant to disprove your claims, you are meant to prove them with properly cited articles.
If the MoP are privately owned, then there is no manipulation in which the private owners do not completely own the MoP. Private property taxation is antithetical to this, and is directly related to MoP control.
Private ownership does not involve public intervention, by definition (Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities).

Compliments are not meant to present an argument, they are statements.

alright, so following that definition private property has never existed in all of history then. I guess capitalism is just a fairytale.

I am not making a claim to truth, it is you who has asserted a mode of capitalism existing simultaneously with state control.

So by your logic, as long as you're not destitute, you can succeed. So what, tough titties for the destitute?

I actually live out in the country in a shitty trailer, if you must know. We couldn't afford to live in civilization if we wanted to.

Having a cell phone with internet is not "champagne socialism". Finding work on the internet is less expensive and faster than wasting gas while I drive around looking. Since all I have is a tube tv that gets little to no reception, it also keeps us alive when tornados and hurricanes come through. I suppose we could do without, like the Amish, but in this day and age, a lack of internet is incredibly crippling, and maybe we just don't want to fall that far.

Besides, if I didn't have the internet, who else would hold your feet to the fire of poverty? And for me, having a voice is very, very precious, because nobody else will give enough of a shit to speak for me.

I have a lot of marketable skills, the only problem is that they were all self-trained, and I don't have any degrees or certificates that say I paid to learn them in an air-conditioned building. So nobody fucking hires me at the rate of pay my abilities should demand.

As suicidally depressed as I am, whenever fuckwits like you tell me to just die because the world owes me nothing, something in me comes alive. The world owed you nothing for existing too, but you took it any way, because you had the means to do it. Any time I attempt to grab my share, I just get beaten down, kicked out and have the door of opportunity slammed in my face.

Now, you take it as a personal insult that I demand a better life. I, however, take it as a personal insult that I was forced to live against my will and then given no incentive to continue outside of the support of my family. And since my family are my only reason for continuing to live, you had better goddamn believe that I would do anything to keep them alive. Just laying down and dying is never going to happen as long as they have needs, so I fight for a better life for them.

But capitalism will give us nothing beyond the scraps we earn by working our asses off. It even refuses to pay for the workplace injuries it gave my father, permenantly crippling him and racking him with pain, because we have the audacity to not be stinking rich.

And so I will work as hard as I can to earn what I can for my family, and in the meantime I will also work as hard as I can to tear down the system that gives everything to you and nothing to me. The rich have no more right to it than I do - if anything they have less because what they earn could improve the lives of a million families each, and at that point it becomes clear: sacrifice the 1% so the 99% can survive.

So no, I will not die. And I hope you don't either. Instead, I hope you one day know what it is like to have a constant feeling of someone slowly drilling into the side of your face while you are too poor and busy working to go see a doctor.

Because that's my daily life. Now I must go to work. Good day, Porky.

No, the entire issue is amoral. I have no purpose to assist those who I don't care about. It comes down a simple question, really: how much of my time, money, and effort do the 'destitute' deserve?
How many siblings do you have? If you even have another kid, shame on your parents for birthing children when they were financially illiterate dunces who could not support life.
You have nobody to blame but your mum and dad for giving you life.
If you can afford it, you are a part of the wealthy minority. Most people will never even see an Internet connection, on a global scale.
Deal with it.
I don't care about the 'poor' because they aren't poor when they have a welfare state giving them thousands of dollars from the wealthy. Like I said: how much of my time, money, and effort do the 'destitute' deserve?
Then they aren't really marketable. You don't really get to set standards for yourself, that isn't how it works. I'm a maths wizard, so sayeth the degree from…
You need some objective standard that you don't decide.
I always relish in the automatic assumption that I am part of the upper class.
Try not to waste time attaining useless skills that you can arbitrarily derive. Go and prove your worth. You're basically upset because people won't accept the tests you wrote for yourself. If you are so smart, go take the entry exams and pass them.
Sounds like your gripe with insurance companies, not 'capitalism'. Perhaps read the fine print next time, they have a tendency to gyp people out of cash. You know, in a free market, they'd lose their business if you utilized the best weapon you have as a consumer: I'm not buying.
No, you won't, and never will. If you had a single pragmatic bone in your body, you'd realize abolishing the market system with this much momentum and investment into it that modern masses had, they would fight you at every turn.
Except they defend their claims in court, and can hire might to defend it when government is abolished. You can't.
I don't actually want you to die, I'm just telling you that if you are so disenfranchised, why continue to suffer.

Honest question: Are you autistic?

I've seen you sperg out nearly half a dozen times on this board. Every time, you've proven to be such a reprehensible excuse for a human being that you'd make Mises proud.

Fuck me, at least normal Libertarians (and most AnCaps) go into feel-good half-arguments when presented with actual circumstances of poor people. You on the other hand don't care whether they live or die, which tells me you're either severely mentally ill or have some sorta condition.

You'll see it a dozen more times if you make these weak arguments.
Excellent rebuttal. Try a little harder, it's really easy to debunk these non-sequiturs.
I never said poor people don't exist. I said that the blame lies with the parents who decide to have children when they are not financially ready to support them, or individuals who make poor life choices and fail because of it, like the retard above who decided to "market himself" based on arbitrary standards. "I got perfect on the test I wrote!" Employers don't give a shit unless you have some proof or a degree. Again, poor personal choices. You've only highlighted how personal failures result in the current predicament, not how there is some international boogeyman that you cannot substantiate.

user, those weren't "arguments", he wasn't arguing, he asked you a question.

If I was rich or not? Irrelevant idpol attempting to poison the well.

pic related it's my wife's son

He might as well be, but this faggotry is deliberate. He knows that the best way to derail a Holla Forums thread is with discussion, not off-topic stuff or gore or whatever. Frankly, I wish jannies would ban the dumbasses who do respond to him.

If you're autistic. And it's only so appropriate that you'd embarrass yourself in a lolberg cringe thread.

Not an argument, not even a coherent comment related to the topic of discussion. Dismissed.

At least you are admitting to lacking any empirical evidence/proper citations or abiding by any logical framework.

...

m'lord

What an excellent way to add to the discussion or even attempt to provide some context for the "muh porky" boogeyman.

Hahaha holy shit nigger what are you even on about. I didn't argue to begin with, not every statement is an argument. The question was if you're autistic, not if you're rich or anything else. How did you even infer that he was asking whether you're rich. God, this is hilarious. Someone, please, screencap this guy.

I can't tell if you weren't bullied enough or were bullied to much in school.

Scroll up, the last few responses have all been attempts to poison the well in efforts to paint me as some rich guy. I don't have to disprove allegations levelled at me, you need to prove them. That's how the burden of proof works. Your question and subsequent statements are non-sequiturs, so that's why I dismissed them.

See, here is another example of a non-sequitur. Individuals who are afraid to defend their ideas with historical examples of success (inb4 ten months of "success") or lack the faculties to do so resort to this level of sophistry.

Stuffing your dweeb face in a toilet and pulling the flusher isn't sophistry

No kek, not everyone cares or comes here to debate.The guy who asked you wasn't even the one you replied to, see the flags, and you have no reason to suspect otherwise. But looks like you're answering his question indirectly.

It absolutely is. You are attempting to divert the topic and, instead of defending your positions, choosing to rehash non-sequiturs (like reposting poorly-formatted text above) or just attacking the character of the person.

Really is actually hilarious. If the entire belief system is so inevitable and easily proven, why not simply defend the points against criticism? Instead, you need to resort to mental gymnastics and make statements like "physical violence isn't really sophistry because it is totally related to our discussion".

Lmao my man gay as hell. Holla Forumsyps were in here spamming gay porn earlier and still came off less faggy than you.

Well, if I decided to make unsubstantiated references to your childhood and call for swirlies it is, by definition, a diversion that does not logically follow from the flow of discussion, as it does not constitute a counter-point. Also, it isn't about "winning", but about convincing and defending your points. So far, you have failed miserably. Your 'comrades' above even failed to cite the 'deadly US imperialism' with a proper citation, opting to endlessly rehash the same assertions as if they are self-evident (see: circular reasoning).

For a group of people who claim to dislike idpol…

pottery

By my mark, there are certain arguments not worth having. In particular, one of the most common is when the opposing party is so abrasive, combative, and otherwise closed-minded that any attempt at discussion would be pointless.

The fact that you regarded my (admittedly blunt) question as an argument bespeaks bewildering anxiety and anger for reasons I can't even begin to fathom. If that isn't the case, the only scenario I can conceive of is that you have a mental condition. This isn't the conduct of a healthy human being.

Capped.

It's like alt right cringe threads, you make one and 8pol start coming in, insisting they're not alt right, and sperging out if the thread continues to get posted in.

I didn't call you Holla Forums, I said self-identified Holla Forumsyps were here gaying up the place and then compared their gayness to your gayness. You're way too nerdy to get through life without being able to read so I'd suggest learning

Very disingenuous.

More internal inconsistency?

So don't attempt to have them, then get pissy when I present a counter-point you don't like (instead of responding to the point, just call them idiots, this is very logical; that is, conveniently enter into a debate when you choose, then leave when you don't want to represent your points).
Of course, why would one discuss irrelevant topics when the topic of discussion is very clear? It is… dare I say it… a deliberate diversion.

Ah, I see. Good on you for clarifying. The statement is still irrelevant, so I dismiss it as being unrelated to our topic of discussion.

On that note, do any of you even want to attempt to cite "muh imperialism keepin da commie man down" in South-Eastern Asia, or do you want to make circular arguments asking ME to disprove your claim?

I'm probably not going to be able to make rent this month.
I need the contents of your bank account, comrade.
Please wire me your funds

How much of my money do you think you deserve because you decided to not have enough money to pay for absolute necessities, like rent? So, I should cover the cost of your poor choices? Again, keep on absolving agency, then complaining when your poor choices bite you in the ass. Move out of the city, get a better job, ditch the Internet.

Nah, my first post in this thread was calling you a fag so that is my topic of discussion

Ahahahaha I didn't make any claim, you really are retarded if you think everyone that replies to you is interested in arguing on whatever you were talking or wants to read those walls of text from before.

No one cares dude.

Gotta hand it to you pal, you just managed to make this thread into the funniest ones to date.

...

You absolutely are when you assert that I am mentally delayed. Provide evidence for your claim.
It isn't 'different', it is an insult meant to derail the topic of discussion I brought up. So I dismiss it.
Excellent, so you rescind any position you might have presented that could have provided evidence for that claim.

That is why I dismiss it, because it is irrelevant. But if you wish to delve into diversions, then you can create your own thread.

Excellent standard for discourse.

I have no ability to work because I have ADHD and depression, so you should wire me the contents of your bank account, which is PUBLIC property that I am in NEED of.
What's the saying? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

...

your turn for sources

Made up diseases. ADHD to the point where you cannot even focus on a simple menial job? Depression where you are going to kill yourself tomorrow? Apply for welfare, then. They won't take you seriously because extreme sadness and inability to focus are not comparable to legitimate ailments.
On what grounds do you determine this to be a valid statement? Simply because you said so? Come and take it.

So, it should be called illegitimate methods of discourse on all sides of the fence. Funny, you're honest enough to admit the point you made is just as retarded as the ones libertarians make.

There you go assuming things again. Do you honestly think I give a shit how you look on this board? You've already embarrassed yourself at least five times in this thread-

MAKE THAT A SIXTH.

That poster made a stupid shitpost, and yet you rushed in to criticize him. Again, outing yourself as a combative sperg who doesn't really want to argue so much as write walls of autistic drivel and piss people off.

Pot calling the kettle black~

Are you not against private property?
You are stealing your possessions and capital from the people by owning them.
You are a thief.
I'm not the bad guy here, you are

But a second ago you were talking about fascism/imperialism/whatever, claims I never made. Holy shit I actually sedated from the laughter, what kind of retard asks "BUT CAN YOU PROVE I'M AUTISTIC?" after being called a retard on an imageboard. How far up the spectrum are you lad?

But tell you what, you like empirical evidence and debates, right? I've got a fun little experiment for you.

What you need to do is shit into your hand and then smear it all over your face, stick a cactus up your ass and go for walk in the fresh air. After you've passed enough people return home and wait for the next time you meet someone you have some vague relationship with. And when they ask you if you're retarded scream in their face "BUT CAN YOU PROVE I'M RETARDED? CALLING ME RETARDED AFTER I SMEAR SHIT OVER MY FACE IS A NON-SEQUITUR!". Guaranteed quality debate is to ensue.

Absolutely, here: fundersandfounders.com/how-much-sweat-it-takes-from-zero-to-billionaire/.
For example, in the US: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400.
Of the twenty, only five inherited their wealth. And when I pointed out that individuals like Adelson were literally from a low income family to billionaire-status, they attack the fact that his mother owned a knitting shop as being 'petit-bourgeoise', despite the fact that they have the luxury of Internet connection and a roof over their head, luxuries which the majority of the non-white Western world cannot enjoy. Talk about petit bourgeoisie!

Generally, when you are typing things out like this, it has to be spontaneous. Which means you willingly left the error in, for… dramatic effect? Really funny, actually. Again, you already admit to not making any arguments and refuse to defend any points, so there is no debate to be had.
[citation needed]
Want to prove that I have a mental disease? Like, a professional diagnosis? The other user admitted to it. You're making a mighty claim, yet you lack any proof… ouch.

Nope. Also, theft presupposes ownership in order for the coerced acquisition to be considered theft. Another primary factor relies on the victim to be cognizant of the theft. Using your logic, and and all ownership, despite you having no knowledge of any specific of who/when/what it is they are "stealing" from you, is legitimate. Even though the primary motivator for property is defense. I till the land and live on it, so I lay claim to it. You take offence and claim it is for everyone. You cannot defend your claim to the abolition of ownership, so your claims are dismissed.

Actually, the first point I made:
This was in response to: No kek, not everyone cares or comes here to debate.
I never accused YOU of making those statements; instead, I stated that those same people you defend as "not looking for debate" make those statements. Lol, you can't even follow the response chain of a discussion.

So you DO believe in private property?
I'm kinda bummed out.
Any comrades in this thread who are ACTUAL communists want to help me with rent/weed money?
Really need it, thx

they weren't even the same people

Go on "comrades", show that monetary value is just another oppressive tool of "muh bourgeoise". Help your "comrade" from your own pocket instead of attacking the wealthy when they pay the majority of the taxes: cbo.gov/publication/49440

Yes, they were. You said that "not everyone cares or comes here to debate."
Elaborate on who "they" are. With your infantile level of debate, none of you are looking to defend your points.

I cited the claims. Any response? Or is it just "I disagree with the source, ergo it is wrong"-tier rebuttals?

If by error you mean the hyphen meant to imply flow of the sentence (just as you've used ellipses in multiple posts), then I suppose you could call it that.

You've already made a number of sweeping assumptions about me. Namely that I'm trying to argue, that I care what you do with your time, and that I give a shit what you look like on this board.

Again, pot calling the kettle black. What's truly amazing is that despite me not once trying to make an argument, you still operate under the assumption that I came here to debate you.

I'm done laughing. Now I'm just appalled.

...

What sentence flow? You purposefully left in the error for some weird dramatic effect. It was five instances… MAKE THAT SIX! No, it is six. We aren't speaking live, you can use your mouse to cut the error out of the passage.
There is a difference between using an ellipse… like this and "I have counted that four times… MAKE THAT FIVE!"
I have never accused you of having a mental disease, so that's only on you on that front. Where else have I mischaracterized you?
[citation needed]
The other user ADMITTED to having ADHD/depression. Where is your evidence that I also have a mental illness?
So, when you berate others for not making arguments, yet you make a false equivalence between somebody who admits to having a mental illness versus somebody asking for your supporting evidence in regards to the allegation you levelled, that is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Keep on dreaming of a worker's revolution, the majority of the public has already witnessed all the core tenets debunked as ridiculously idealist with little practical application.

Okay, fuck it. I'm back to laughing again.

I've been laughing since anybody ever referenced socialist success. The two are oxymorons. I've been asking for instances where the workers control the MoP, but I've just been met with "muh ten month timeframe is an accurate representation of reality!"

It's not a cringey libertarians, it's a troll and it's succeeding at derailing the thread.

...

Explain how I should intervene to help people who are drowning? What makes you think some weird boogeyman cut their limbs off? If I save them, what makes it so that they don't just drown again? And finally, explain who is 'drowning' in the West today.

I really don't understand how context could matter here it's a simple statment that the police should be used to crack down upon the homeless (those being state police too interestingly) Your second statement i'm afraid dosen't mean anything since i'm not an ML or anyother such variety.

it's the gud bois who dundu nuffin
it's da crackas fault they're "drowning"

Dear god ok what said the guy seems to have lost his Cerebral Cortex

you can post more than one image per post though. polite sage.

Again, it isn't "let's go kill them all", but keep on attacking that strawman.

Not an argument.

Then I couldn't be typing, or living. Point refuted.

Why is the ayncrap screeching autistically when the NAP is what they uphold, should the loltard who drew this be on his side? Must be really stupid if he doesn't even know who his allies are.
Again, why? Agorists are basically ayncraps with an illegal praxis

...

funny how the bottom panel perfectly reminds me of That Guy who has a sad job that he hates, tiny apartment, cheapest available car, no woman & few friends, but thinks he is "rich & making it". i know so many.

Why the fuck would anybody post this seriously? They know that Dwight's character is a caricature of a servile, authority worshipping office brownnose right? You're supposed to hate him for it

Libertarians and Holla Forumstards are often autistic and are unable to pick up on satire.

Can't make this shit up. You guys are so pathetic. Keep up Libertarian-bro. People like these mongoloids need to be fought and debunked where ever they are, mercilessly.

...

It's just a meme. Don't overanalyze it.

He said he wasn't a libertarian in point blank, even if you think he was "winning"

libertarians are great
they can be allies as long as the thing being done falls strictly within their interest
theres even some socialist causes that if stripped from any ideology can fit right in

back on track

...

...

Kill lolberts.

...

If a janny with time to waste is reading this, could you please mass-delete the troll's mess? Thanks.

...

ur gay

really fuking gay

Not Libertarian but I got this is part of a reply I got on a video about JonTron, the start of the comment is basically just him apologizing for what JonTron said on the Destiny debate.

this shit liberal meme forgets to mention the economic recession that followed the Reagan era en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession

Democrats had a majority in congress during the raegan era though.

these people are so self destructive.

...