We need to have everyone on Earth take this test or one similar...

Libertarian non-aggression on display folks

How has Holla Forums been overrun with censoring cucks, and not the board literally born from cucks?

And that's bad because?

Fixed

He is a gigantic douche.
a fascist in disguise.

Censorship.
how disappointing.

Whatever, I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work. Mainly because the state rose out of capitalism, not the other way around. But I wouldn't care if you did it.

I think you mean lower left comrade :^]

After my censorships, I refuse to be associated with them.

I think you meant, "Please, shoot my face with five different shotguns," cuck.

this.
anarkiddies are more detrimental to leftism than any enemies

Still dumb. You think you have figured out all of the worlds problems, and everyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or evil.

Have you ever considered that you might be not be the pinnacle of human intellect, and you are wrong about at least a few things?

Still wasn't an argument broski.

Okay, enjoy your crypto-fascism, "libertarian."

Tankies are far more detrimental then any harmless anarkiddy.

I think you misread my comment.

This.

I know that the last thing the world needs is another liberal.

I know I'm definitely wrong about most things. This isn't one of them.

Neither is repeatedly saying "not an argument" in lieu of explaining why I'm wrong. Pfft, ha.

Why are people comparing me to those cucks called fascists?

Leftism is interested in abolishing institutional hierarchies. Aiming for a horizontally organized society(where hierarchies are there because the people feel they are better off with them and can be revoked by the people as well) is the complete opposite of "anti-freedom". Anti-state capitalism is much less free.

Wanting to back to ML is stupefying, but they usually have good arguments against the common accusations thrown at communism.

So, you want no individuals.

You are wrong because the bottom right-corner is anti-humane and anti-freedom.

And I feel the same way. Let's go out on the street and fight eachother

How do you extrapolate that from what I said? We are interested in an environment where the individual can thrive. You can't have that in a system where the individual is at the mercy of a corporate, or state power.

You literally just described capitalism, not whatever the fuck that was about "horizontal societies."

See the spoilered text in the post you replied to.

I'm calling you a fascist because that's exactly what you are. You want to have everyone who disagrees with you killed. You're certainly not a libertarian, for is not the supreme deprivation of rights murder? You support killing a great portion of the human race simply because they disagree with you. You're just a fascist who tries to claim the title of libertarian; a crypto-fascist in the truest sense.
We already knew that all right libertarians are crypto-fascists.

You don't understand leftism yet you're critiquing it. I don't believe the freedom of the fortunate to exercise power over the unfortunate.

Someone in a capitalist society is at the mercy of whoever owns property. Whoever would own the finite supply of water in a libertarian or an-cap land would control the world.

Remember these?

Libertarian capitalism is anti-freedom because you simply replace the authority of the state with the authority of the property owner. There is no fundamental difference that separates them.

All property requires the initiation of violence to enforce.

That looks a lot better than the political compass. It could use another axis for private property/collective property though.

It assumes that we're already on leftypol.

I agree with this.
More axis, more accuracy.

There was an attempt to make a leftypolitical compass a couple of months back. Would you be interested in participating in that project?

Again, fixed.

Then why am I against it?

Okay, so you're only against crony-capitalism.

I can go onto Bandcamp or YouTube, make a few songs, earn money from them, and if I gained significant notoriety for my craft, I would be leagues ahead of most people in my city, literally starting from nothing but an old computer, a copy of FL Studio, and a guitar with strings missing. That is only possible in a libertarian capitalist society.

So, are you against capitalism, or government-controlled monopolies?

Or, more accurately, the authority of the individual.

Except one is powerful because they say they are, and the other is successful by will of the people. Coca-Cola is a success because people chose that product to be successful. No-one is arresting you for not drinking Coke, as that image suggests.

So, McDonald's is sending armed goons around to force people to eat their food. You're describing a GTA mission, not the marketing decisions of a mostly honest company.

No I'm against capitalism. Why would someone not be able to buy up all of X resource if they had the capital? You can't curb a monopoly if X person controls all of the supply and there's no more. Resources are finite.

Besides, I find it ridiculous you think all the rich people are gonna fight against each other for scraps instead of working together to maximize profit.

You don't understand leftism. You didn't even understand what horizontal control means.

It's current year, why has nobody created a 3D version of this? The problem with the system is that it can only have two axis.

No you retard. Property rights require force to maintain.

See, I support the authority of the individual too. I support it so much, that I think it trumps the rights of the property owner. I am decentralizing even farther down than you are. You want to dismantle the state but leave the next layer of authority intact (property).

All property is based on the implicit threat of violence for non-compliance. Just try to sell your own hamburgers in the parking lot of a McDonalds and see how non-violent they really are.

Please do, I'd love some help with this

Again, capitalism doesn't allow anyone to buy all the supply that exists, just the amount youneed for your business. Say you need X amount of beef from Y Farms to make burgers, you'd just buy that amount of beef. Buying the entire farm would cost far more money, and would be against the wishes of the farm owner if they don't plan on selling the farm. If you wanted to and had the means, you could open your own beef farm. Letting one person own all of everything is something that capitalism aims to prevent.

Yeah, two companies that make similar products are gonna compete, not for scraps, but for a little more money to pay for property taxes, employee wages, production materials, etc.

Of course it does, it's your fucking property. If some stranger started spray painting all over your windows, you'd want them to pay, and if they refuse, you can sue them for vandalism.

The property owner is an individual, and in a capitalist system, any individual can become what you might describe as a property owner. Where the hell do you think Ford came from?

Are you saying there should be no problem with trying to harm someone's business on their own turf?

no u

...

No. There is literally nothing stopping someone from buying whatever they want in a capitalist society if they have the money and it is for sale. The example you gave didn't even make sense.

Or if they're big enough, they could work together to try and extend their homogeny.

We're against the concept of private property. We want worker owned businesses.

Socialism literally stops one person from owning everything by stripping that part of the system.

Good thing not everything is for sale and not one person has the money to buy everything.

They can. No part of American capitalism prevents other companies from working together.

If you don't want a choice in the products you own, just buy the generic brand at the grocery store.

Again, where do you think Ford came from?

Then it's a shitty system.

Autocrats need to be executed.

How about those families that have 100's of millions of dollars?

Agreed.

Missing the point entirely.

Well I mean Cuba put out the first lung cancer vaccine in 2011 while American drug companies have been releasing horrible drugs that rarely help for years.

There's also that whole "first country into space" thing, and lifting millions out of poverty.

Do you even own a brain? Capitalism, at least in the US, is made to prevent monopolies.

That's not even close to the amount you'd need to buy everything.

Then what did you mean? Do you actually want the government to own everything?

Cancer doesn't have a vaccine. Do you not know what cancer is, or is this part of some Cuban propaganda?

Yeah, chemotherapy and vaccines never work! /s

Hooray, they waggled their dicks in front of the US, telling them to show theirs.

Yes, shitty countries occasionally do good things. That's doesn't mean the country, as a whole, isn't shitty.

So … Did it work?

No, but crony capitalism isn't real capitalism, remember?
:^)

I didn't say everything. I said the total amount of X finite resource in a given area. Owned by a corporation.

I want the workers to own everything. I'm an anarcho-communist.

jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/13/1037.full

This is a joke right? America hasn't been at the forefront of the medical scene in decades.

Doesn't mean the entire economic system is shitty. And I know a lot of people who prefer the union to now, though I disagree with how it was set up entirely.

If you can go "no true capitalism" I can go "no true communism" so you can fuck off with that.

my income is 100k, you tell me if it works

Well, in my city alone, I have at at least five different pizza franchises to choose from, as well as three Chinese restaurants, five burger joints, and two Mexican grills (assuming you include Taco Bell as being Mexican), so it looks like a job well done.

Crony capitalism is capitalism, just not the kind anyone likes unless it's for special interests.

Not one corporation can own all the resources. That is against the law in the US.

So, you lie to yourself.

All that article says is that it deserves further scientific testing, not that it was a definite treatment against cancer.

Doesn't mean it's not.

And I know people who unironically voted for B████ in the primaries. That doesn't mean anything.

That wasn't my argument at all. I was simply stating that your idea of capitalism is what capitalism fights against.

Why the fuck are restaurant branches and shitty repackaged brands of flavoured corn syrup the ultimate bastion of freedom of choice?

Food is a product. If it were a monopoly, I would only have one of each thing that I mentioned. Also, I'm a little snacky.

This is why I hate rightards.

For some greater context on my original post; at this time. Normally, I'm incredibly anti-censorship and for free exchange of ideals, often to the point of my friends calling me an anarchist, but at this time, when authoritarian social progressivism is thriving, we need to take any action necessary to stop it from spreading, beyond debunking it in YouTube videos. I mean, for shit's sake, there's a kids' show on the air right now that teaches being gay is better than being straight, it's perfectly fine for women to rape men, and you can totally try to destroy the world as long as you're part of a protected group.

Open your eyes, and SEE!

news-medical.net/news/20160311/Food-monopolies-growing-everywhere-reveals-new-book.aspx

Owning a large splotch of the market doesn't make a monopoly. I'm talking about literal monopolies, as in only a single variant of a type of product. For example, if Samsung was literally the only company making phones.

Read a book, it's interesting.

...

It's only a matter of time before oligopoly become an monopoly.
Accumulation is a trend, and you're in denial.

Typical.

Slow evolution towards a possible monopoly isn't an intentional monopoly. For an example of what I'm talking about, look at the Fine Bros. on YouTube. They wanted to start a YouTube network of sorts that would presume ownership of an entire genre of video by threats of legal action, which they had already done in the past. For something closer to what you would call the real world, take a look at Apple, who had at one point been attempting to coerce record labels to make music by their artists exclusive to the Apple Music service. Two or three companies having similar shares in the market isn't a monopoly. See the root word: mono, meaning one.

Are yo talking about the problem, or the kids' show I mentioned as an example of how bad the problem is? Because neither is exclusive to the US.

Wew lad.

See

So you're willing to totally abandon the foundation of your beliefs just because you're losing?

I'm willing to kill people in war, yes.

There isn't going to be a war numbnuts. Unless you're going to become some faggy alt-right terrorist because SJWs trigger you, and you believe in freedom of speech as long as they don't say anything you dislike.

You're right. There already is.

Yes, "trigger." That's how people describe opposition to a serious threat.

Can you stop that? It's more than me disliking what they're saying, it's that the things they're saying and doing is harmful. I don't care if your skull is more dense than a neutron star, get it through to your head.

I get it. Mono means one.
Your English grammar lesson was enough.

I can only repeat myself, competition can't last forever. In the end only one can remain.
What are you gonna do to prevent monopolisation? Ban mergers?

read about dynamics of mergers
people.bu.edu/miaoj/mergerJEDC.pdf

and about umbrella branding
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_brand

Yes a lot of things SJWs say are retarded, but they aren't coming for your constitutional rights yet (barring Hillary taking away our guns).

Look up the phrase, "can we get some muscle over here" into Google. Then, look up "free speech zones," then maybe you can spend a couple watching videos by Milo Stewart. Oh, and that kids' show I mentioned earlier? Steven Universe, episodes "Island Adventure," "The Answer," "It Could've Been Great," and "Message Received."

This might sound crazy, coming from someone like me, but I don't think that's gonna happen.

SJWs acting like thugs is just college campus nonsense. Do you really think that something like a "free speech zone" would stand in court if challenged? If it does then it would probably be on some bullshit about how it's on uni property so they can do whatever they want. Basically private property trumping your fundamental rights to freedom of speech and consciousness.

As far as Stephen Universe goes it's a fucking cartoon that is promoting things you disagree with. Big fucking deal.

See

Oh yeah, the rest of that.

It's also unconstitutional and should be illegal.

Hopefully not, but no-one's tried to sue over it. If they have, it hasn't worked and we're more fucked than I realized.

It's hard to tell through text, but you say that like it's no big deal. The actual fuck.

My sides

(checked)
Why ban them? They're fun to kick around.

>A person is genuinely concerned about actually harmful agendas in kids' shows

Just to be clear, this isn't "Pokemon are Satan" or "GTA is a 9/11 reenactment" or some shit like that, I'm talking violent sexism, discrimination based on sexuality, and justification for genocide, all of which have examples in the show that can be readily pointed to.

so what are you waiting to do it

Almost like art is inherantly subjective, and people get a lot of messages out of it that the artist never in a million years intended.

Hotpocketry is not the answer. If 'corrupting da chilllldrennn' was something they could ban art or arrest artists over, Porky, polyps, SJWs and other vermin would call everything that triggered them or made them look bad that to get it b&, just like they do with muh phantom profits, muh degeneracy and muh soggy knee respectively wherever they can make those stick.

Alright, here goes.

In the episode, "Island Adventure," Steven takes Sadie and Lars to a tropical island via warp pad. While on the island, the boys are convinced that the warp pad somehow vanished or was otherwise misplaced. The reason for this is because Sadie hid it under some leaves so she could, quote, "spend more time with Lars." Her intention was to hold him captive until he was her boyfriend by default. The show, bizarrely enough, only treats this as a kind-of shitty thing to do, not the seriously fucked criminal activity that it is, and she never gets any punishment for it beyond what amounts to a verbal slap on the wrist from Lars. Given the show's all-around female positive attitude, it's not hard to put two and two together.

This isn't linked to a specific episode, it's actually about an entire character who is in every episode of the show: Garnet. She is, in essence, a walking love letter between a lesbian couple. She's a fusion between Gems Ruby and Sapphire, who have been confirmed both in and out of show to be a romantic couple. "What's wrong with that," you ask? She's a main character. She's in every single episode, and time and time again, we're reminded of how awesome she is. She's the physical embodiment of a two-person Pride parade. No heterosexual couple in the show is given this treatment. Steven's relationship with Connie, seeing as he's the main character, is only symbolized this way in two non-consecutive episodes, and the second time was only a voiceless cameo. Again, seeing how "thupah pwogwethiff" they seem to keep trying to be, it's not hard to come to certain conclusions.

This last one was actually a major cipher key into discovering all of this, and why I feel the way I currently feel. The episodes, "It Could've Been Great," and "Message Received." Hoo boy. In the former episode, the Crystal Gems go to a Homeworld base on the moon to find more information on the Cluster. While there, Peridot mentions, let's say, "other plans" that Homeworld had for Earth thousands of years ago. Namely, turning the whole freaking rock into a hollow, lifeless husk to serve as a part-time checkpoint and communication hub, talking about it with glowing enthusiasm and suggesting the Crystal Gems are stupid for being angry with it. The way she talks is important, because it's the way someone in real life would defend a position from their perspective. See, the show often plays with moral ambiguity, such as revealing that the monsters the team fights are also Gems. Anyway, before they can rightfully chew her out and/or pummel her for her glowing praise of planetary destruction, our main protagonist Steven jumps at her defense! Granted, it's not so much, "Hey, she's not evil or anything for thinking this sorta thing, right?" (the answer is yes, she clearly is, throw her off the fucking rock), it's more, "Wow, wouldja look at the time," while tugging his shirt collar. Really, it might as well have been the first one. Also, she takes with her a little diamond thing from the moon base, which brings us to…

"Message Received," where it's shown to be a a communication device that can contact one of the Homeworld leaders, Yellow Diamond, and going by the trailers for the episode, it's clear she ain't too happy with Earth. Steven, having seen her take this object which he didn't know the purpose of, decides to talk to her about it. After asking what it is, she continues her praise of Yellow Diamond and Homeworld. Instead of calling the team to "poof" her and grind her gem into dust,he just talks to her. Y'know, negotiating with a terrorist, that thing that every world leader swears not to do and for good reason?

Originally, at that point, I turned it off. All of he pieces fell together and it was too clear to ignore; a show that promotes bigotry, sexual violence, and terror apology is freely roaming the airwaves into the homes of cable packages the world over. It made me sick to my fucking stomach. I had sworn off of the show from then on.

However, I had recently been notified of the rest of that episode. Supposedly, she fully converts to the heroes' side and tells her former leader to fuck herself. Having now seen it, yes, that is basically what happened, but it only helps so much. Again, Peridot, much like people in the real would, defends indefensible actions made by people close to her. In the end, she may be on the side of the greater good, but the showrunners know what they're doing. They had a point to Peridot being annoyed with the Crystal Gems' defense of their home planet, one that they fought for and lost fellow lives over. The show's use of parallels to the real world in the text makes it not only understandable, but necessary for us to do the same with the show's own subtext, and the implications it brings are nothing if not horrifying.

Remember to hide, sage and report Aynclap threads.

I'm actually bringing it up to make a point about how the existence and accumulation private property often infringes on other rights that I would argue are more important. But you're "muh invisible hand will fix it".

4 U.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CimaVax-EGF

Claps confirmed for fatasses who eat fast food every night.

Remember when Holla Forums had these conspiracies about that Nickelodeon show that they were sure was about encouraging interracial sex? This is literally what you look like, you're no different than SJW's, your retarded culture war is irrelevant.

It's a dumb cartoon, get over it you pussy.

Strawmen, strawmen as far as the eye can see.

Because your picture isn't a straw man?
You absolutely should also get over it if you think there's ebul miscegenation propaganda on TV. Nobody cares.

And therein is the problem: they should. Read what I posted regarding the show and try to defend it. Also, my issues with the show have nothing to do with there being an interracial couple. Yet another strawman.

lol ok

Seriously, have you read any of my diatribe against the show? At what point did I indicate that Steven and Connie's relationship was bad?

Because it's such a blatantly inane thing to care about that being mad at the racial aspect would actually be more understandable.

It's literally no different from how Tumblr complains that random bits of media have bigoted allegories when the creator clearly did not intend them to.

Except it wouldn't. That would be more inane than having, you know, actual reasons against the show.

One, except I have actual reasons to believe what I believe, I'm not simply being triggered. Two, how do you know they didn't intend it?

Yes, and the state is just made up of people too. You failed to notice that I was talking about *authority* here.

If you have money. Sort of like anyone can become president if they have the votes.

I didn't, I was just saying that in this system, everyone has rights and those rights should be protected, including the right to run a private business.

Yes, that is literally the only barrier, and such a dilemma can easily be remedied nowadays thanks to websites like Kickstarter and Patreon.

What system are you talking about? Certainly not the currently existing system. We have all kinds of legal regulations on privatize business. If you are talking about fantasy systems then I think you could do a bit better and go all the way to the bottom instead of leaving the middle layer of hierarchy (property) intact.

Also, doesn't your admission that all property is based on violence undercut your assertion that capitalists are only "successful by will of the people". Also undercuts any notion of it being the most "pro-freedom" and "pro-humane".

*clapping intensifies*

She didn't rape him or force him to do anything against his will though. Stop being such a pussy.

This is laughable. Why care about this you idpol pussy

The rest of your post is you grasping at straws. You seem like the kind of person who would believe a "creepypasta" of the main character being in coma or something, lol.

Yet you can't stop crying about lesbians or whatever.

I'm trying to stop mountaintop strip mining. That would take billions of dollars.

And you've already admitted that there is no such thing as a "free market", since all property is based on the implied threat of violence.

American capitalism. Just because we regulate businesses, doesn't mean they're not private businesses. Sure, those regulations are sometimes bullshit, but they don't undermine the right to successfully run a private business.

Okay, when in Fuck's name did I say that?

Except, oh, make him stay and build a relationship with her under false pretenses. That's still kinda more than a shitty thing.

You're responding to it, presumably after reading it, and you feel the need to ask that question. My amazement knows no bounds.

How so?

Except that hypothesis is so nebulous, it could literally apply to any universe. What I'm doing is using the show's knack for real-world implications through symbolism against the show.

I actually don't have a problem with gay characters. I treat fictional gay people the way I treat real ones; with a neutral, mellow, "Cool," accompanied by a shrugging of shoulders. My problem is when the writers of a piece of media treat gay characters as either better than all other characters, or a trophy to brag about.

You know that's an extreme example. I was talking stuff like indie movies, or making music with the right equipment.

Again, when the shit did I say this?

You know that's an extreme example.

These "extreme examples", the examples that dominate the real world in big ways, are one reason I am a socialist. We are talking about nation-wide economic systems. The fact that anyone can afford a DVD or whatever is irrelevant.

It sure seemed like it here when in response to me saying that property required force to maintain, you said "Of course it does, it's your fucking property."

Not the same person? Well then explain how it doesn't require violence.

Not all force is violent. For example, if someone is making a scene in a restaurant and they refuse to stop or leave, it's totally within the owner's right to call some type of law enforcement to make them get the hell out.

And why would people do what they police say? Could it have something to do with the guns the police carry?

Without the implied threat of violence, why would I care if someone called the police at all?

By him being a fucking retard.

Holy shit this is fucking golden.

You're so spooked that you write a goddamned newspaper article sized post on an imageboard about a fucking cartoon.

Stop the presses! This kids show HOLDS VIEWS I PERSONALLY DISAGREE WITH! The horror! Front page article in the New York Times has to be this! This is literally the turning point of human goddamn history!

I just took this 'test' and got this result. I'm definitely NOT an AnCap. I think this test is shite.

Take 50 people from each quadrant and have them start their own nations.

I imagine everyone leaving to purple eventually, except some hyper religious nuts in blue

...