You hate porky for being exploitive and greedy, yet you still buy into porky’s products?

You're not as smart or special as you think you are, and transparently so. Your regurgitation of platitudes about "consent", "contracts", "self-employment", etc is obvious as fuck. We can tell you from miles away just like we can a Nazi who believes he's not setting off any alarm with his talk of "international bankers" or "whïte genocide".

Negative. It's a statement about how the systems in place do not allow for existence outside those systems. Before any state existed, a man could go where he wanted for the most part to get whatever food he could find.

There is no where this is true any more, the system gives no 'opt-out' option, where you can just make your own living without capitulating to it. Not only will you be homeless, but you get to enjoy the laws against being homeless; you're not allowed to just be poor anywhere.

This situation is not mere whining about having needs, it's about being artificially prevented from fulfilling those needs directly by a system that will punish you if you refuse to be exploited (have the better portion of what your labor produces be taken from you to go to people who merely own).

This is not a very scientific reading of evolutionary development. Especially because intraspecies competition does not necessarily take on the form of class struggle, and because humans, before the appearance of agriculture, lived in classless societies. So your argument is extremely invalid.

The point of socialism is not to make people equal. It's to make a classless society. This does not imply everyone will have the same skills, the same desires, or the same characteristics. It does imply that everyone will (generally speaking) have the same economic interests, and that humanity will be able to make economic decisions as a unified force, in a rational way. Class society cannot achieve this.

Some people being better at others at certain things does not imply a hierarchy in terms of organisation. In fact, if natural hierarchies were a real thing, then it would be pointless to have a state to enforce them. The natural leaders would always rise to power, and then be naturally challenged when their power diminished. However, this does not happen. They always depend on the state aparatus (and thus the work of others, who would be, in your fantasy world, their inferiors) to protect them from oponents. This is inconsistent with the notion of natural hierarchy.
The fact is a natural superiority at something does not imply that that individual will naturally form a state around himself in order to protect his power as far as that thing is concerned. He does not need to. His leadership appears when others follow his example and naturally recognise his skill, and vanishes when people no longer recognise his skill, or prefer someone else. This cannot happen in a system with a state, because the state actually REPRESSES this.

Well observed. However, all forms of capitalism are the same as far as the fundamentals go. They all include a bourgeoisie, a proletariat, wage labour, exchange-value, and a state. (unless you think ancapism is realistically possible)

No. All forms of capitalism include protection of class society (the status quo) by the state, and all of them include surplus value being produced for the bourgeoisie by the workers. (except for state-capitalism. That's a special system that doesn't have a bourgeoisie, and has the state get the surplus value instead)

Seems legit. However that would be quite counter-productive to my goals.

You are a special individual that never buys anything, and produces everything for himself?

Negro what?

You are ignoring the criticism that was made and changing the subject like a faggot. The fact is that you HAVE TO get everything from the market, and you do not have any alternative under capitalism.

You probably meant to put an "or" there instead of an "and", because otherwise that would imply that raping a woman at gunpoint is not exploitative. It obviously is, despite her consent, because you coerced her by threatening to kill her.
In capitalis, you don't have any alternative to working for a boss, becoming one yourself, or dying. How you do not see this as coersion, I will never know.

The threat of starvation of significantly diminished quality of life is not a force that coerses one into working? Are all the arguments about how increasing unemployment benefits too much will make people not work actually false?

That requires capital, which you cannot get without someone either giving it to you or working for it. Even then, depending on what sort of "self employment" is involved, hundreds or thousands of dollars in certification might be involved. Completely autonomous "self employment" is almost universally impossible.

If you believe this, you are living in a fantasy. Even if you could just form a union, most States have laws which make them effectively worthless, either by attacking their means of funding or outright denying them the right to collectively bargain, making them "unions" in name only.

It actually is. Through the process of Commons enclosure and estate clearing the vast majority of peasants were forced off of their collectively owned land in order to increase the agricultural profits of the aristocracy as well as to provide a workforce for the burgeoning bourgoisie.

Is it or is it not coercive if I threaten to send men to your home and drag you out if you don't give me the money that I want?

I don't. I actually live in the post-USSR world, where following the regime change the "English-speaking world" literally colonized us, took hold of our factories and farms, and made us go "die." But a good guess, nevertheless.

You left out that such a thing, ya doofus. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to answer your unintentional puzzle. In a system wherein unemployment is a feature rather than a flaw (and think about this for a second what this actually means in terms of irrational labor dis-allocation), those who don't get to advertise themselves as >le optimal candidates, get fucked over, get evacuated from their homes (since unemployable) and are considered trash. According to you this is
According to common sense this is the squandering of human resources, period.

Are you living under a rock, you complete ignoramus?!

Are you living under a rock, you complete ignoramus?!

Have you heard about the thing called "unemployment"? Fun fact: it's a structural necessity of a market economy, and also the most ineffective way of allocating our labor-force…

The literal fuck is self-employment? But more importantly: exactly what percentage of the actual population is "self-employed?" 2-3% ? Are you literally retarded?

No. It is operating under the assumption that if I create 100 pieces of Disney toys a day I am entitled to have the fruits of 100 Disney toys' market worth a day, without a fucking exploiting me and converting the difference to profits.

The communist declaration is literally the most conservative one ever conceived, you cuck:
You are so deeply cucked that you are swallowing the deepest cocks under the pretense of a "rationalist" economy.

I didn't know that only the group you wished to paint me as was able to use those words. Again, none of this actually presents a response, you're just saying "this is how I think you think, therefore ???".

I beg to differ. The particular emphasis on the system and the false dichotomy that is created (which collapses upon itself because all it takes is the instance of one person who is not under employment and does not starve to falsify the claim, like… all the people on welfare) points to an outrage (as many ITT have not been able to control their emotions and have already lashed out at my questioning of their worldviews) against why these systems exist, which also asks others to explain why you can actually find sustenance without being employed. That's what I mean when I say that they are asking others for life advice, essentially.
Yes, and as civilization has advanced, individuals have defined boundaries which are arbitrary but are also enforced. Any territory you are not allowed to exist or utilize is not a transgression against you, if you cannot defend or assert your dominion over it, then don't be surprised when others can.
Self-employment refutes this concept. All the people who have made enough money and immigrated to Southeastern Asia and live like kings refute this, too. It is entirely possible.
Please source this claim.
Don't pull the wool over my eyes, that's not the same as "laws against homelessness".
I've already explained how it is not, by definition, exploitation. But I will ask this of you: can you show me a single law, if you think the state is the aggressor, which forces you and removes the possibility of consent when it comes to employment?

You shouldn't have to gamble on a lifetime of servitude just to live and be in control of your own life.
Aside from that, 90% of self employed businesses fail in their first year, and the numbers of new small businesses have been dropping since the recession.

So you admit then that the threat of violence underlies all property.

Such as?

In many countries, you only get welfare for a certain period of time, and then have to do an internship, or find work, or your benefits will be removed from you. Your argument is invalid.