I'm lost on your guys definition of what a capitalist is. Can someone explain this to me?

you know the old saying. venture capital is the mother of all invention

Human nature is selfish. Why would somebody create something if they're not going to get anything out of it?

Material need drives people to create and innovate, not a boss or a king. People do things which make their life easier and there's really no need for a middlemen, who really doesn't do anything besides steal from you btw, to do that.

by your definition of innovation, mao was an ancap godmaster since he also made millions of people to innovate new forms of recicling leftovers for months

Curiosity and need.

If the entrepreneur actually do some work instead of simply throwing ideas around, and do not rule his business like a feudal lord, he's not that much of an exploiter.

Great innovations like the Hyperloop and non-existing model 3 Telsa cars !

desire for innovation

I dunno, ask Tim Berners Lee.

No. We commies are the real cool kids, so we get to decide what is human nature.

Because I don't have to "get something" out of everything I do. This gimme mentality is a learned mindset created by the cutthroat profit drive of capitalism

That's how capitalism functions. If you think arbitrary property rights and wage labour are the logical conclusion of everyone following their rational self-interest you are beyond delusional. Read Kropotkin or Stirner, who have a way better idea of what self-interest means.

Thank god for capitalism promoting innovation. That's why the capitalist countries were the first ones to pioneer space exploration and development and… oh wait.

Sure you can have little invention out of curiosity like the wheel or something.My question is what makes people want to up improve upon such invention? If the people are already satisfied with what they have, why would they waste time on something that would barely change their situation?

That's a banana that has been photoshopped to look like a duck.

People are motivated less by money. There are quite a bit of people who willingly go into professions that pay isn't great, but go into it anyway because hey have a passion for it.

Curiosity was clearly enough for GETTING THE FIRST MAN IN SPACE!
Boom btfo. You can go home now

Sure YOU don't but not everyone holds the same mentality as you.

If you ever talk to a teacher, pastor, ect. You'll quickly realize that the pursuit of money isn't as strong of a motivator as you think it is. Actually, it is the pursuit of money that hinders people's passions and true motivations.

who says it has to be money, maybe they are passionate about what their building, maybe they will be admired for being good at something they care about

???????
That doesn't explain selfish people.

Except most studies on human nature would say that the majority of people think that way by default.

It's in the people's self interest to abolish the state and to use the resources to benefit the community as a whole.

...

I'm not saying passions don't exist. What I'm asking is, what is an alternative drive to innovation?

A capitalist is someone who exchanges a thing with value (say, money) for more value than they started with.

There are three kinds of capitalists.

The most basic form is the money-lenders or bankers. They make more capital off of initial capital through interest payments on loans.

Next is the merchant capitalist. They exchange their capital for goods and then exchange those good again at a higher price.

Finally, we come to the industrial capitalist. They exchange their capital for tools, resources, and raw materials, transform those with someone else's wage labor into a commodity, and then exchange the resulting commodity back for more capital than they started with. It is the widespread existence of the industrial capitalist arrangement that distinguishes the system of capitalism from past economic systems.

...

Ask all the content creators on the internet 90s and Oughts. Better yet, ask a modern worker who spends his life making things but dies broke in his seventies while welcoming people to Wal-Mart.

It seems like every year ancaps seem more and more confused and incoherent. That may just be me being tired of having to explain repeatedly that people don't just sit and starve to death while waiting for a boss to tell them what to do

Their passions alone that will benefit the community and thus you as well.

First of all, you are grossly underestimating the drive of curiosity and interest. Almost every great scientist of the renaissance era didn't go into science because they wanted money, rather generally they were already rich and therefore had the resources to research in their free time. If we can allow everyone to live comfortably then we could vastly improve the amount of researchers in any given fields.

Secondly, people are generally dissatisfied with what they have. The tools certainly were a big help when first introduced, and people were very content, I imagine, but eventually at some point along the way people tend to take what we have for granted, and we begin to notice the flaws with what we have. For instance, people (mostly Holla Forums faggots) get irritated if their 4K ultra-graphics display drops to like 45 FPS, even though 45 fps would be a boost to older 30 fps displays in the past. This irritation and continual desire to make things better will almost always provide some degree of motivation to innovate.

You place your trust on economic growth on passion?

The first farming tools of civilization*

People don't grow for the sake of growing. They grow with a purpose. We want a system the is focused on use. That growth will benefit the whole of the community and something everyone can use.

Seriously what growth do we need at this point? We have more food than we eat, more houses than we live in, more cars than we drive, more useless shit that breaks in two years than we could ever possibly need. Will you die if you don't get a Juicero? Well I can tell you who is dying, millions of people every year. From starvation. While we produce a surplus of food in practically every country in the world. That is not a sane economic system. At least Stalin ended famine after his first whoopsie with the Holodomor, and yet Capitalism has failed to provide everyone even their most basic human needs despite centuries of "economic growth". AnCaps are fucking delusional

Like in third world???
The ones that are not economically free.

…

You do realize the third world makes products for the first world right? Capitalism inherently needs imperialism and poverty.

What about Somalia?

Then explain the fidget spinner to me. It doesn't benefit the community, yet kids wanted. Will there industries with useless shit for the sake of the community?

Expired patent renewed by another party with a massive marketing push. Pretty dismal example.

fidget spinner was not made out of demand it is a bullshit useless piece of plastic whit bearings that was marketed into oblivion, creating artificial demand. In communism you can have trinkets and toys, they will probably be locally made, and if one gets popullar people can mass produce it. So you can expect shit less retarded then fidget spinners

This may come as a shock to you, put people struggle to get food in America too. The land of the free, and the starving

A metal whatsit that spins. WHAT WONDERS CAPITALISM CREATES. You can have your fidget spinners, I'll have my free food and housing.

What are their numbers compared to third world countries?
Well who made those? Did you pay them back for it?

They should be zero. They aren't
Well a farmer sowed some seeds in a field and watched them grow and then harvested them. That harvest was then made into food. Which I ate. As for my house people laid some bricks and some insulation and wiring and stuff a few decades ago and now I live in it. It's pretty neat. Meanwhile in ancapistan homeless people sleep outside empty houses

Still a lot easier to get food here than other poor countries. Since we produce so much.
You didn't answer my last question. Did you pay them back for their labour?

Do people still suffer? Is their invention that can help relieve that suffering? If yes then innovation will happen

stupidest fucking people on earth

um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur? um, like, an entrepreneur?

QUALITY ANCAP DISCOURSE

I don't think you get it. We overproduce food. Across the world. Everyone should be getting the food they need, but they aren't, and they won't under Capitalism
Did you pay your mom back for raising you? You shouldn't since she obviously raised you terribly. The basic logic of communism is that people in every society rely on every other person in that society. The farmer grows food and the builder builds his house, and the builder builds houses and the farmer grows his food. This is how every society works, even Capitalism behind all the complications. Someone builds your house and someone grows your food, and in turn they rely on you for something. What's the logic in paying someone this or that when it's obvious that everyone needs one another to keep society running. In communism there is no paying, there's just this. Meanwhile in capitalism you have a small class of people earning a lot of money for doing jack shit because the state gave them a paper that says they own everything. Meanwhile workers who are responsible for keeping the basic functions of society running can't afford food.

OP, are you trying to pull the leg on us?
All your arguments are basic ancap shit that you can refute by just reading.

As the other poster said we throw out a lot, put another way we can do better, so why stop at "well, its still better than most places"
and the only way to do that is to societally cordinate, either the government takes over, which I don't personally want (as I'm sure you don't), or we radically alter the way we allocate resources.

yes. back when we lived in tribes our ancestors did nothing but fight each other for money and profit.

Well you want to make sure that everyone gets the food they need you're going to have to overproduce, and I don't see any other economic system doing that.
HAHAHAHAHAHA OH FUCK, You're telling me you didn't exchange something of the same value with the people that provided you goods. So in a sense you exploited their hard work and all they got in return was your existence. They probably would have got more out of their lives if you didn't exist at all. Its not like you were worth anything.

At Least the capitalist gives something, you just stole it from them.

youtu.be/PWHaHgSWU0w?t=256
spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2014/03/19/working-class-hero

But not everyone gets the food they need, that was the whole point.
Overproduction of food, not to feed people, but to sell, and the food that wasn't sold just goes into the trash.

Right wingers have small dicks.

So your solution is to take down the economic system rather that to lower the prices of good or provide to charity?

Yes, no other economic system manages to overproduce food while its people starve. Like I said Stalin eliminated famine in Russia. When even "THAT EVIL MAN WHO KILLED GORILLIONS OF PEOPLE" can feed his people while your system consistently fails to, something is wrong with your system.
No argument detected. Maximum butthurt
Which part of "farmer grows builder's food, builder builds farmer's house" didn't you understand? It's not like I'm not doing anything, I'm doing my part as well. The only people mooching off someone else are capitalists. You sell them your labour for pennies and they're making a killing. They're ripping you off. The capitalist is nothing without the worker. Why does the capitalist get all the money?

...

If the economic system is what's making these things happen, what's wrong with taking it down?
I don't want starving and homeless people to depend on the good heart of the rich in the case they want to donate 0.01% or less of their riches.

So your solution is to take down the economic system rather that to lower the prices of good or provide to charity?
I get the exchange of goods between the farmer and builder. But you still haven't said how you provided anything back to them. All you said is "I'm doing my part as well", what is that?

Why would you stop your massive food source??? Because a small amount of people can't access it? It you want to provide to the poor then take it too them since we have enough to spear.

The land? I don't think that a revolution is going to eliminate that.

Capitalism is not the source of food.

Its not he land itself, its how its used. No other system overproduces goods.

Duh, I'm a fucking communist. Capitalism won't solve these problems because its existence depends on these problems existing. Also, I thought you were an ancap. Shouldn't the magic of the free market solve everything. Why should charity or statist price regulations be necessary?
It could be literally anything productive. I could be the one shipping the farmer's produce. I could be teaching their children. I could be their doctor. Think about the all the things that are necessary to make your life function. They all need someone to make it happen.

Breaking news: Capitalism makes plants grow out of the dirt. It can also turn water into wine.

It over produces food.

Again, why are you regarding the capitalist overproduction of food as a good thing?
Overproduction in capitalism is NOT feeding people, is just making more trash.

I see, the capitalist sprinkles dollar bills over the ground and crops just shoot up into the sky. That's obviously the reason why we overproduce. If only capitalists could use that magic to feed people

The means of production are what allow us to overproduce food. Not the relations of production that we know of as "capitalism"

If only there was a convenient way to quantify your actual productivity so you could legitimately ask to get back a decent equivalent to your contribution…

Uh no, If you want to lower prices, you compete with other companies producing the same goods and lowering the prices. The increase in supply will lower the prices becuase nethier one of the companies want to out done by the other, and supply and demand.
Why are you complaning about charity, you want free stuff don't you? Prices are nothing than a label on value. State not needed.
How do you equivocate your productivity to the thing you been provided (how did you pay for it fairly)? They all came at a cost, my question is did you pay off the cost effectively? Because if you didn't, than you just exploited the workers.
Yay goddamn right

...

Labour vouchers? Money doesn't provide a decent equivalent to your contribution, since the capitalist keeps most of the money for himself

Since the food is already there, and you want these people to get feed. Why don't you give it too them instead of taking down a system that has backup plan on food.

So a lessor is a capitalist, according to you ?

Capitalism is terrible at innovation. New technology and innovation disrupts the markets so capitalists try their best not to.

Ah, the farmers don't make extra for fun.

See: youtube.com/watch?v=-RRa0lkhy4E

Its not the tool that counts, but how its used.

Yes landlords are also capitalists

So capitalism has always existed, contrary to what most of commies say (muh capitalism born in the 15th century).

Only if you equate feudal land ownership with modern renting and the commodity form that it's built upon. Feudalism does not require widespread use of exchange values, commodities, being based mostly in a system of use values.

And the capitalist relations of production have no real influence on how a plow is used. Just who "owns" it and where the money goes.

No it hasn't. Capitalism is a class based system where the proletariat works in the factories/private property owned by the bourgeoisie. This has only existed for the past few centuries.
Capitalism is not "Muh trade".

Different forms of renting, markets, and wage labour has existed since time immemorial. They haven't been a permanent fixture or dominant mode of organization in the sense it has been since the bourgeois revolutions in Europe during the 17th, 18th century and 19th century.

I know this is a troll thread, but I've actually found this thread pretty informative.It's answered a lot of the dumb questions I've had about capitalism and communism, at least.

I'm not thinking about feudalism in particular, but more about the Roman Empire / classical Greece in which the private ownership system (slavery aside) was pretty much the same to the modern one

Farmers are literally burning food on the fields while people starve. They do this to keep prices up because of "supply and demand"
Amazing
The point is that you can't quantify that shit, and they aren't under capitalism either. Capitalists commodify the parts of society they can profit off, and the rest is left for everyone else to handle without compensation.
Like I said before, do you pay your mother for raising you? No you don't, because that's taken for granted. So should food and housing

Wow, I didn't realize production for exchange existed in the stone age
Seriously fam, this is pathetic. You're obviously grasping for straws, you don't even know how the system you're defending actually works. Your only recourse is to go "hurr entrepreneurs", "hurr growth" without actually comprehending anything we're actually telling you. At this point you're basically our piñata. Except no candy's dropping out, just bullshit

The thing is that slavery was by far the defining mode of production of that era. It is true that the seeds of capitalism has existed within primitive commodity exchange and capital accumulation, but it is only recently that is has become the defining component of our society. You should look up the tendency of the rate of profit to fall when you have the time.

Is that u muke?

No, why would it be?

Do you possess elementary logic ? A leftist told us that renting is capitalism. Ofc renting exists in the stone age, you can imagine a tribe renting a forest to another, smaller tribe, in exchange of some wild meat.

There are plenty of functioning co-ops out their in capitalism. We just support free markets and private property. We don't care who or how many owns the means of production. Common property can exist.

Muke just learned about the falling rate of profit and has started mentioning it everywhere.

Alright, so I guess the workers can take it from porky then. Oh wait porky'll run and cry to the state and they'll shoot them

You obviously don't
Literally a scenario that has never fucking happened and only exists in your head. Just like Adam Smith's mysterious land of barter. Please for the love of god read a book. I'm not much of a fan of this book, but read this

Ayy lmao

No one on here actually produces anything. Without capitalism they'd all be starving in the streets.

Then take it off their hands.
Oh my god not this shit again.
Yes you can, its called money.
"Other people should take responsibilities for something they weren't apart of"

………………did you forget who you are talking to?

...

But that literally communism we can't do that
Capitalists are earning billions without doing anything so it's obviously not a good quantifier for how much you have contributed to your society, except in your fairytale land.
I'm pretty sure your boss benefited from you growing up to be a stable adult. Society has long ago decided that everyone has the right to have parents, but apparently they don't have the right to have food. Maybe because porky can make money off food while children don't make profitable clients in the parenthood business.

No I didn't. Your ideology is completely delusional. Capitalism cannot exist without a state to enforce private property. Without the state, capitalism would have collapsed over a century ago and we would have communism now.

Never heard of Kowloon Walled City ? Everything was perfectly fine without a state, there

wew

Literally controlled by gangsters. Are you gonna praise Somalia next?

First fidget spinners, now this.

Yes cause when I think perfectly fine I think people packed tighter than sardines.

Why?
Its not what they're doing its what they did, i.e. invested into the market. Like i said early there are plenty of function co-ops that exist right now, a capitalist responsibility can be split into multiple people.
Private security.

There's two separate people.

And without the State, what's keeping the private security the capitalist hired from killing the capitalist and taking over his land?
I mean, if human nature is selfish, that's just what they naturally should do.

If you're going to pick a anarchist place atleast pick The Republic of Cospaia

Well, you're example's good, but mine shows that ancapism can also work in extremely dense urban areas.

War is expensive, plus their is no guarantee you would even win. Also no one would buy products from such a capitalist for the fear of their own lives. You would make a lot more profit if you just competed peacefully.

Because what you're saying is that we should expropriate their property for the common good. Capitalists from here to Musk's secret base on Mars would be screeching
Yes and what their parents did. And what their parents parents did. And what their parents parents parents did. Are you seeing the problem? Capitalism doesn't reward intelligence or hard work all those people get the chump jobs while their bosses earn all the money. Capitalism rewards being born rich and taking other people's money.
The state protects the ruling class' interests (and property) against the interests of the majority through violence. Just because you own the state doesn't mean it isn't a state

Well why are ancaps equally retarded in the same ways?

What if that capitalism is the only one in the region?

Lol classic, Just pay the farmer a little fee or say the you'll burn the crops on your own. Persuasion is a thing.
"Economic mobility doesn't exist"

How is mere protection a state?

What could possibly go wrong?

Then who are you fighting?

After all other capitalists are beaten of course

Do you even know how the agriculture business works?
One, it's social mobility faggot, learn your terminology. Two, going from a prole to a capitalist is a one-in-a-million event, the person doing it is probably already well-off and has had a muh privileged upbringing and whatever the case he is still making money from exploiting the labour of people who don't have property and who only have their labour to sell. Read Wage Labour and Capital

Your going to have to provide an argument. I can't tell where you still a problem at?

That's literally what a state has been since the day some rich guy hired a bunch of goons to extract taxes from people and called himself king (or duke, or pharaoh, or whatever). The bourgeois state exists solely to protect and further the interests of the bourgeois class

So a monopoly?
Its a free market those barely would happen without government intervention.

Your state will be supplanted by G4S et al.

Prove it. Stop spewing ideology and actually prove what you believe in instead of making us put out your stupid fires every time you post.

You're gonna have to define 'working' for us.

Regardless Kowloon was still dependent on the Hong Kong/Chinese economy and had police raids to enforce state policy.

lmao what? you think muh NAP will make competition not turn into plain sabotage? you think natural monopolies don't exist? what if one company finds a way to produce more cost-efficiently than the other and keeps the information away?

States have to break monopolies all the time. It's all that preventing, say, AMD and Intel from eating each other. Because if there was only one of them left then they would have a monopoly over CPU's and an insurmountable advantage in the "free market"

Also this. It's getting pretty tiring having to prove how everything you say is horseshit. You're making a lot of big statements. Prove them.

You said he was going to burn the crops its not like they where going to sell anyway.
Actually its called Socio-economic mobility. Their are plenty of ways to become middle-class or even rich. People are just bad at investing. Why do you think most lottery winners always fuck up with there money? Plus you don't have to work for someone in order to get rich. There are sport and entertainment jobs out there. Or you can just become a freelancer.
1. Are you telling me you don't have police in communism. 2. You defending your home from and attack is a state?

youtube.com/watch?v=Dvb2j0Wt218

...

None of that follows anything that he wrote.

Competitors exist you know.

He said the protection is a form of a state. Police is a form of protection.

Never said it was easy just possible, decisions take commitment. Commitments not a lot of people are willing to take.

He said "protect and further the interests of the bourgeois class", not only protection.

No he didn't, jackass.

Cool. Fancy explaining to me why a handful of security companies dominating the global market currently only kept out of monopolizing by the states they operate in would be better than these dozens of states we already have, when they'd effectively form a gigantic army with a state soon after the global ancapiphate is declared?

Any form of protection can protect anything. What he said doesn't make sense. He must think the only the rich can afford protection.

It's not about it being easy dumbass, if you actually read my post you would realize that. People aren't "bad at investing", the stock market is a gamble, sport and entertainment jobs not only have a lot of competition (and therefore a ton of luck) involved, but to succeed you will most likely need to have good genetics when it comes to things like appearance and performance, and freelancers get fucked by their clients all the time. Why can't i just get food by contributing to society by doing what i am best at?
Also no lumpenprole has a chance at doing any of the things you mentioned. And most proles would rather not bother.

1. that's not profitable, 2. why would someone pay for that?

Yes because the prices have to be kept up. Supply and demand. Farmers can't make a profit, so they lower supply.
Investing with what money? A person who lives on starvation wages isn't ever gonna earn enough money to invest in a fucking fidget spinner let alone a business.
So instead of working for porky for a wage, you're working for a contract. Wow.
1. There are no classes in communism, so there is no upper class that needs its interests protected from an impoverished under class. Police was originally created to break strikes and protect private property, which you would know if you had read a book instead of watching Prager-clones and le no argument man. 2. No one hires people to protect their homes, they do it themselves. Porky has to hire goons to protect him from the people who live and work in the property he owns.

Surprise fam, rich people can afford to hire more goons than poor people can. Poor people don't hire people to do things for them, they do it themselves. When the revolution comes it's gonna be a battle between porky's hired goons and a shitton of poor people with guns, not one private army against another.

That's it? A fucking video with less then 3000 views? That's your proof? I'd say I was surprised but I'm not, it's been what 3 and a half hours and you have failed to make one decent argument and have mostly made your way by nit-picking. It'd be cute if you weren't defending an ideology responsible for the deaths of millions every year and untold misery and poverty.

wut?

????????????
You can. People can make money off doing what they love.
Not everything in capitalism is a fucking factory.

Except that has to be done at the expense of millions of people who die in poverty

...

Stop being retarded.
Why do you pay your taxes?

That is so obviously bullshit that it is not even sophistry. Admit that you trying to argue nonsense to avoid acknowledging that you got btfo.

Then why did they grow extra in the first place, it would have been more profitable to grow less???
Stock, saving bonds, saving your money up.
You act like people only can't save things up.
Amazing right, your self-employed.

Wow thanks invisible police.
Uh, you do realize that causes conflict right? Why would somebody pay a protection company to oppress their consumer (your source of money). Where do you think capitalist get there money from? Plus you act like this people won't rise up? Yet they'll do it for you. Peace is more profitable.
Lol you didn't address the video's information

Its a lot more profitable if a another protection company step in and protected such place. Now that places revenue goes to you. Also, people can defend themselves.

Uuuh, youtube.com/watch?v=vqlVL26jrCA

If people are will to pay for it, you can make money off that.

What job does this?

Again, since you seem to be posting red herrings to put distance between yourself and something you haven't answered, now with all your clauses to get out of answering it included.
Why would a handful of security companies dominating the global market currently only kept out of monopolizing by the states they operate in not be caused to monopolize once those states are gone, leaving no room for smaller companies to offer the same service as by that point they quite literally have a transcontinental monopoly on violence backed up by unfathomable economies of scale?
Facts to remember:
Monopolies are profitable
They are prevented by states
You cannot start an opposing transcontinental armycorporation to fight the transcontinental armycorporation backed by trillionaires who have by this point monopolized violence
There are already several gigantic corporations offering this service in the present day
They will be rich enough to buy out all startup competitors
They will be powerful enough to crush all startup competitors
They will be powerful enough to begin treating the area as a feudal fiefdom

Another nonsense argument that has nothing to do with what the post you responded to said. Fuck off.

A state is a monopoly

You also act like people won't defend themselves when threaten in the face of violence.
And where is do you think these corporation are getting there money from to fund such armies? Taxes?
Do you honestly think people would just stand by and get stolen from? Do you really think people wouldn't rise up against such a force? Yet you guys talk about a "revolution".

Such an argument.

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to change the subject.
They have just monopolised violence
I just fucking told you. They're getting them in revenues right now and will continue to get them in revenues when the state is abolished, leaving them the major competitors who would soon monopolise with nobody to keep them in check.
Some stupid fuck like you just handed it over to them on a platter with his economic illiteracy.
They have just monopolised violence
Shut the fuck up and stop trying to change the subject.

I put the important parts in red text because you're apparently too thick to read anything you don't like the sound of.

Nonsense requires no argument. Make an argument if you want to hear one in response.

lel
……how the fuck do you monopolise people fighting. Is everyone getting paid?
You dipshit, just because they're funded now doesn't mean they're going to be funded then. Money runs outs you know. So if their main source is cut off, how are they going to get paid?
Taxation is theft. genius.

Argument: Poor people can be protected by private security.

How the fuck do you call yourself an anarchist if you don't understand the concept of a monopoly on violence?

In the vast majority off instances humans will help each other out for free, it is in a minority of cases that they would not do this

youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc

Also, engineers and programmers do the bulk of innovation and creation nowadays, not le entrepreneur meme. If there was ever a time when "entrepreneurs" made anything of value, that time has long passed.

i thought ancap was just a meme
but no, apparently there's someone who took that shit seriously

Like how Lenin and Mau did?

Holy fuck please tell me you are joking, right?

Nah. Capitalism still existed in those countries m8.

who pay the private security ?
take 10 min and think about it.
if your boss tell you to go beat that worker that get a megre pay & work 84+ hours just because he had 2 min piss break.

poor get protecte by private security as well that poor are represented by the parliament.

Capitalisme forms hierarchy. read the conquest of bread.

And don't forget to eat healthy.

He's dumber than the """Former Commie"""" since he has actually fallen under the belief he has a coherent worldview and has built up cognitive dissonance around it.
Some clever thinktank somewhere is convincing idiots they're smart.

private ownership of the means of production.

That's all Libertarian Think Thanks.

...

*WRONG*
youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

ancap bait thread?
ancap bait thread

spectacle (ˈspɛktəkəl)
n
1. a public display or performance, esp a showy or ceremonial one
2. a thing or person seen, esp an unusual or ridiculous one: he makes a spectacle of himself.
3. a strange or interesting object or phenomenon
4. (modifier) of or relating to spectacles: a spectacle case.

I place passion and desire as the only horse worth betting on.

...

...

if ya hooked:
youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4

Pretty much everything in that video is wrong. The logical consistency is somewhat in tact but it's claims rest upon false syllogisms, like most Ancap claims.

Here's how business is conducted in reality. Businesses have an incentive to maximize profits, this is undisputed. The most profitable equilibrium of cost and units sold is what determines the price of a commodity under capitalism.

Am I the only one who found that funny?