I'm debating an AnCap tomorrow, does anyone want to throw me some tips or solid arguments...

Technically an-caps don't believe in corporations, not that it matters because they'd still have massive authoritarian structures and act as an entity (essentially making it a corporation in the modern sense, without legal personhood).

Also this. Not only that, but private property is a spook.

...

When will you morons learn that debating reactionaries is only useful if you're a masochist?

But we're not all retarded like Xexizy.

Your trips don't lie.
Every time I debate reactionaries, I have to debunk their meme tier """"arguments"""" about muh market incentive and muh human nature.
i'm sick of repeating myself a million times

I think you guys are just illiterate, if you can't debunk meme arguments swiftly, then you shouldn't be debating. Those are the debates that are easiest to win, you just have to sit back make them look retarded.

All this jargon about

Just comes straight out of the mouth of Xexizy dicksuckers. It makes me think that most Marxists are retarded, which I'd prefer not to think, but I get proven right every day.

Not a logically necessary result of saying "I won't attempt to murder you if you own property that you profit off of."
Which is a problem if there's no competition and enormous redtape and artificial barriers to entry, granted that inherent barriers to entry can limit competition as well.

The value of the risk-taking and investment and management that capitalists do wouldn't be respected in whatever commie hellhole you want.

Neonotanargumentism

Oh my God, it's so awful!
Okay, compare to:

Communism, such incentives, very good, many wow!

Then tell me how you do it, maybe you say the same and we experience it differently or some shit. Genuinely curious.

every_retarded_stereotype_about_communism.rtf

strawman

Feudalists everyone.

Why would we value risk-taking at the expense of the workers livelihood? Are you retarded?

Because you can't ever refute it, KEK

And this is an argument??

The rest is just really cringe and shows you have absolutely no understanding of Socialism or what the hell Communism even is. I know I shouldn't have taken the bait but Ayncraps amaze me.

You've done nothing to specify the degree to which you argue that "fetishization of labor" is inherent or merely a tendency within capitalist societies, hence you could always cry about strawman argument precisely because you barely made an argument, it was more like a vague accusation that I pointed out isn't a necessary part of any society.

Workers' wages approximate their productivity in a competitive market, if workers are "underpaid" you're claiming either the workers are shit and have low productivity or there's not enough competition, in the latter case, open your own business, in the former case, you can help them learn skills that are applicable to more productive jobs.

All business ventures involve risk-taking you fucking autist, are you seriously suggesting that every entrepreneurial venture, no matter how unwanted by consumers or inefficient would succeed in a communist society by sheer force of fuck market forces we're going to produce shit people don't want at the cost of producing it?

You're right, I can't refute arguments that don't exist.

Also, your strawman pic misses the obvious point that if people are corruptible, centralizing a monopoly of force which has enormous power over everything from society to the economy is a formula for maximizing corruption, the more competition you have (e.g. imagine if the U.S. broke up into 500 countries), the more obvious corruption is, because if Country A needs to tax 10% more to fund its unnecessary military industrial complex (a form of corruption), people will just move to very nearby, more efficient (due to less corruption) Country B. The degree to which this competition is relevant depends on both the ease of movement between the two countries and the availability of information. What would likely happen is a lot of hidden taxes as is very common in European states at this time (official tax rates might be as low as 30% in Scandinavia, effective tax rates well over 50%)

I didn't watch the debate, I skipped around a few times but it was too cringey. All I can really say is:

1. If you have to spend the whole time defending Marxist states, then yeah you will lose. Anyone who's read history can you tell that the living conditions were not desirable to social democracies at any time period. Notice how Xexixy keeps bringing up Rojava and Catalonia when he goes on the defense.

2. Racists are full of tons of logical fallacies that are easily exploitable if you know anything about the scientific method and sociology. Hell, even the most basic liberal arguments are enough to make these guys look autistic, but then again, Marxists sympathize with Facists and don't listen to liberals either. So you really can't take advantages of anything except for cherrypicking low-hanging fruit.

Having a brain and not being delusional is a logical fallacy?

Is the debate going to be streamed?

You didn't ask, don't assume everyone is a Stalinist. Put down the propaganda and listen to the reformists and anarchists before memeing.

See pic.

Mate, in Ancapistan, you will have the entire planet to pick your workers from. Therefore, business owners will virtually never have to compete for workers, therefore there would be no real reason for most companies to increase wages.

Yes, under Capitalism. Again, why would I value Porky gambling with the labor value of the workers?

In a socialist society, you would gamble with your own labor value, not the value of every worker. Although it wouldn't be much of a gamble, because you would hear what society wants directly instead of what gets Porky another Yacht.

What, how are corporations controlling everything, not an argument?

everytime

Probably.

When you make a vague accusation it's not possible not to risk strawmanning when replying to it, this is due to your failure to be specific (e.g. capitalist societies have this tendency due to x, y, z reasons but it is not an inherent trait.)
See pic. I also have graphs!

In Ancapistan, workers will have virtually all the businesses in the world to apply for jobs to. Therefore, workers will never have to compete for jobs, therefore there would be no real reason for gommunism.

Unless you're omnipotent and omniscient, entrepreneurial ventures will involve risk in any society.

Corporations have influence, governments have guns, armies, and gigantic enforcement agencies backed up by those guns and armies, you tell me which is more important.

everytime
If we're more genetically different as races than other subspecies, for taxonomic consistency are are obligated to refer to racial categories as subspecies (even if you have clinal variation, as so many subspecies do.)

His ideology is probably based on le everybody should be free to do anything as long as they don't infringe on others' right to do the same meme. Fuck that foundation up. Especially he's going to argue that the definition of freedom is purely negative - show this claim to be arbitrary.
Make the case that his interpretation of liberty is arbitrary and based on irrational preferences.

...

Where?

It has nothing to do with how well-read or smart you are you pretentious asshat. Muke is an alright person but I have no respect for him as far as his grip on theory goes.

It doesn't have anything to do with how good reactionaries are at debating either, because they're not exactly well-read or smart. In fact they're almost by-definition not well-read, and often not smart, because it's basically a necessary condition for someone to be a reactionary for them to be really ignorant in some way. With the notable exceptions being Schmidt and Heidegger (though the latter later renounced his association with the Nazis).

The reason why debating with reactionaries is a waste of time is because debate has nothing to do with how smart or well-read you are or even how good you are at arguing, to a certain point. That kind of thinking is liberal nonsense where it's assumed that everyone is going to be acting rationally (whatever the fuck that means) and arguing in good faith, because everyone is a "rational" agent. This is complete horseshit for many reasons, but the bottom line is that debates, like everything else related to politics (if not human relations as a whole) is fundamentally a question of power and domination. Those who have the power to reproduce their narratives will dominate the discourse incessantly, and produce in people ideological thinking that is very difficult to overcome for the sheer fact that ideology is self-reproducing. You cut off one head and two more grow in its place. You end up playing a game of definitions where you aren't met with spam.

And really, it's not just the reactionaries who come to a debate prepared to argue in bad faith. We all do the same, because we all assume that we're right, and we all have our own reasons for believing ourselves to be right. And this is why debates are a waste of time, and why you will fail at debating a reactionary every time you try: Debates are nothing more than two sides trying to impress the audience more with their rhetorical parlor tricks, and the reactionaries will win every single time in this regard because they already dominate the discourse. If they didn't, we wouldn't need to debate them in the first place!

Reactionaries need to be attacked and shut the fuck down, not treated as our equals. If you keep trying to be the better man despite their underhanded tactics in debates and in real life shit that actually matters, you're going to lose every time and the events will nevertheless be spun to make you look like the bad guy. If you don't believe me, you can just look at the opinions that the majority of Holla Forums holds about us despite over a year of being accommodating to reactionary shitposters coming here to "debate". They control the discourse on Holla Forums, they reproduce their narratives, no matter how many few debates we've won against people who were probably going to end up becoming communists at some point anyways.

Look at this old non-argument meme.

why would a capitalist debate a capitalist?

the only argument you're worth is a bullet to the back of the skull

unsheathes ice pick
teleports behind you
Nothing personnel, kid.

If you will debate it in abstract as one fantasy land against another fantasy land that's just retarded. You need to show how capitalism developed historically, how it is violently established by stealing common property and how its poor conditions generate people's fight against it, i.e. class struggle. A lot of these faggots actually operate under Robinson Crusoe mythology in their historical narrativization, see this for example mises.org/library/misesian-case-against-keynes (also Hoppe is the most valuable because he pushes everything to the extreme, sort of Ayn Rand of political philosophy).

I'm just curious, do you disagree with this sentiment? I do agree with it, though this also makes me opposed to anarcho-capitalist or minarchist ideologies because I don't think they are conducive to establishing individual liberty (in fact, quite the opposite).

Not sure yet, but I'll make a post about it on Holla Forums sometime today. I'll put it here too if you want.

My original accusation was, "The fetishization of labor is inefficient and terrible for society" How does that in anyway mean all leftists want to kill anyone who engage in Capitalism?

M8, you drew a baseless accusation, I called it out, now sit down.

Your graph is most likely accounting for the income of Donald Trump and friends, not the average worker.

You've got to be shitting me. Does automation ring any bells? Do monopolies ring any bells? I could go on, the nature of free markets is to employ people only when it's profitable.

I suppose having capitalism being terribly inefficient for workers isn't a real reason in your mind.

The problem isn't workers taking risks, the problem is workers being forced to give up their wages so that Porky can take risks and buy more yachts or have adventure in the middle east.

Regardless, the risks workers would take, would be near non-existent in a socialist society.

You left the part out where corporations would have all those things, so I'm going to go with governments that are held accountable to the people.

Yeah nope, African Americans aren't descended from us. We are all Africans if you go back in history far enough.

Wait are you saying animals are subspecies to Homo sapiens?

Wtf?

>mises.org/library/misesian-case-against-keynes
I find it unbelievable that people still buy into classical economics. That would be like someone believing in alchemy over chemistry in the modern age.

I do agree with it, but while recognizing that it's a very empty statement and far from sufficient.

This is good advice, I was already planning how to do that because I knew it would be the smart thing to do.

Yup, thanks.

I suppose the issue I have with it is the idea that not allowing someone to use their resources in order to make people choose between being exploited and starving to death is a violation of one's individual liberty.

I find it unbelievable that people still support suck dems. That would be like someone supporting the NSDAP in the modern age.

Why are you talking about animals when we're talking about racists?

Make a coherent argument, please.

Fucking This, you all should fucking read Wolfi!

Anyway OP if you are an idiot enought to expect anything of value with an ancap then use this ammo. This text is essential when it comes to proofing ancaps arnt anarchists.

archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

My point was that "allowing people to own means of production and profit from them" (e.g. not imposing communism, however violently) does not logically necessitate "fetishization" of anything.

Based on… nothing, so I'm supposed to take your word for it, are you at least a priest or something?

Yes, because it would be harmful to consumers to do otherwise.

hue.

OY VEY THEY'RE TRYING TO FORCE ME TO WORK!11

I'm saying humans have as great if not greater Fst distances (genetic distance) between races as other animals have between subspecies. Put in perhaps excessively simple terms, human racial groups are as "different" as two subspecies of humpback whales are.

Humans are animals, they're not exempt from natural selection or biology. If you have a consistent scheme of taxonomy, if you want to say "there are subspecies of humpback whales" you would be obligated to say "human racial groups qualify as subspecies."

That's the negative vs. positive freedom debate.
Negative freedom means nobody is actively stopping you (whatever that exactly means)
Positive freedom means the presence of opportunities (whatever that exactly means)

Which would be relevant if the debate was over semantics…

That's a false equivalence homie, the problem with classical economics is that it doesn't accurately represent reality. It's not just a question of ideological differences.

Positive right to a Cadillac means you get to enslave whoever can produce one or steal the nearest Cadillac. Positive right to healthcare means you get to enslave the doctor or steal from people to compensate the doctor to get them to treat you.

Negative freedom is the right not to be killed, not to be robbed, not to be assaulted, not to have someone operate on you without any consent (or at the least a reasonable assumption that you would consent if you were conscious).

If Keynesianism did, Japan would be the wealthiest country on Earth, too bad their economy has AIDS.

They can always be reduced to sutch if your opponent is good enought to steer the whole debate. It will happen if you allow it to happen.

Best girl

also, I hear there's a cool place for pedos
>>>/oven/

...

>>>/oven/

What do i hear? Another ancap unironicly supporting fascism, you people are the most quick to beg the state to help them when you are in danger. Fuck Militia's am i right? Oh wait they are underpaid cause of the masses amount of competition on the market and in legal pmc war's for market shares

Capitalism necessitates that every man, woman, and child be employed once they come of age. Add to that a culture that agrees anyone who doesn't follow this is just lazy so tell me, how do ancaps NOT fetishize labor?

I searched for your graph and found nothing, but your graph is saying that wages directly correlate with productivity. An amazingly egregious claim when we have half of the country making minimum wage. The only way your graph could make sense is if you factored in the upper class and super rich, whereas mine looks at the average workers income.

The ball is in your court to prove me wrong.

Historically inaccurate.

Real great argument.

So there is as much genetic difference between a white person and a black person vs a white person and a humpback whale. Pseudoscience everyone. Gather round!

That's a nice strawman.

I believe this post is wise and says the truth but if you still want to waste your time debating then you better "win" because Holla Forums is 0-2 in "debates" right now and looking pretty retarded.

I exaggerated here by mistake. However, a huge portion of America is poor, close to 35% make working class incomes.

A lack of counter-cyclical fiscal policy and increasing taxes in a recession isn't Keynesian economics implemented properly, and even then, the spending worked somewhat

ebin :^)

If they reproduce the same narrative, then you reproduce your same argument and then the viewer can easily tell who is being more truthful

It's not about convincing everyone, it's about convincing those on the fence willing to listen and think. It was a chance for Holla Forums to gain more exposure but Muke was retarded and wanted to let his friends carry him.

Why are you acting like debating with reactionaries is a failure every-time? Muke's previous debate went by pretty damn well.

The point isn't that Xexizy didn't win the debate clearly, the point is that they all sounded dumb as shit.

Watch Sam Seder debate libertarians, he's incredible at it

One thing I would bring up is the question of how anyone would even know when a violation of the NAP takes place, how in a society with no courts someone would determine whether a borderline situation is a breach or not (and how you would get people to agree with that ruling), and what would stop the wealthy and powerful from just falsifying evidence to justify their own blatant violations of the NAP.

But you really shouldn't bother. You don't debate reactionaries, you shame, condescend, and tease them until they give up their beliefs from peer pressure. The stubborn ones you shoot.

One thing that usually gets too them is the question of how ancaps would make it better for the common man in the west when the higher living standards demanded by people here pull the rich towards moving capital into china and other place like it.

They also dislike when you bring up how private property can be used to attack others in ways that are standard business practises today. Like if buying up all land around a business to devalue it or buying out competitors or the suppliers of competitors.

On top of this they also don't like the fact that private property is expensive and most people even if they have a sucessful bussiness idea which in most cases they don't, being able to afford land is a stretch for most and a very high risk unless you're rich already.

well the idea with ancaps is that they think there will be competing private courts and police organizations and such, and the most successful ones will just be those who are voted on via cash (of course the problem with this is that the law will directly serve the interests of plutocrats)

WTF was the ancrap b& or something? His post are all le gone.

Ancaps usually don't like to face that supply and demand economics combined with the profit motive leads to those with capital destroying supply in order to create value for themselves. For example if you own a lumberyard one way to create proft is too fund insurgents to destroy a town so you can transfer the people in need of homes value on to yourself.

Whatever you do avoid strawman arguments. That is the biggest mistake when debating ancaps.

Yeah, but that would require for both of the opposing sides to voluntarily agree to participate in the arbitration process abide by the ruling of the court. What if one side says that they don't need to go to court because there was no violation?

Basically, what I'm saying is that the "he started it" principle is fundamentally unworkable in practice and will result in bloody civil war 100% of the time and legalized murder 110% of the time. Can an ancap please pop in to confirm this?

I'm hungry

Are you the yugo-user from the student union thing?

If so you'll do great buddy. Just try not to let them control where the debate goes and you will be good. I believe in you comrade.

Nah, just some genetic dud

There was a video of some guy explaining courts and shit in an ancap society while drawing stuff. It was a pretty good explanation of the ancap conception of society (though I obviously think it's garbage, just very well explained)

Does anyone know what video I'm talking about?

fuck i'm retarded

What did he mean by that?
Classical economics (Smith-Ricardo-Marx, later Keynes and Kalecki) is the only one that make sense, because classical economists were mostly progressive bourgeois and looked at capitalism in its development and studied its inner mechanics, as opposed to neoclassical economists — the real alchemists — who replaced everything with sterile abstractions, which never work in real world (therefore the world is deemed imperfect and not the theory).

what

Debating Ancaps is useless, dont do it.

Where can we see the debate?

also muh return on capital, op

Keynes attacks neoclassical economics (and formalizes it along the way for an attack) by actually looking how capitalism operates, so he naturally comes to many conclusions of classical economics. This is why Keynes is compatible with Marx youtube.com/watch?v=wKtD0rIDMNI

this

Marxism is based exactly on the fetishization fixation on labor. As automation improves, labor—and thus value—decreases, am I right?
Which corporations are these? Small businesses make up 95% of new jobs.
Can you appreciate use value and exchange value as well?
The cults of personality that surround progressive rhetoric sets the stage for feudalism.
In doesn't have a "monopoly" on terrible incentives
As evidenced already, they would have to be persuaded to "put their bodies on the wheels."

Tomorrow is today. Where is the debate?

OP won't post the link because he's afraid of pulling a Muke and becoming the laughingstock of Holla Forums. Can't really blame him tbh

comunism and socialism fetishizes labor, capitalism fetishizes leisure

it is beneficial to pay them well and to keep their mentality positive

market value > labor value

nothing bad in it ;^)

it has no incentives, just like evolution

are you still living in industrial era?

Don't.

None of those are good arguments.

do you even protestant work ethic

A society free from coercion is a fantasy, since even in an AnCap "voluntarist" society coercion is used to maintain private property rights. The question then becomes how can coercion best be used in the interests of freedom?

After that you need to make the connection between wealth and freedom. Point out that the wealthier somebody is, the more freedom is had in life. Then point out that capital accumulation is only possible by ensuring that the wealth you accumulate is kept out of the hands of the general population, meaning that you are expanding your freedom by restricting theirs. This is against the interests of freedom, and as such a society that creates the greatest freedom for the greatest number must distribute wealth equally.

You don't understand the fetishization argument if you think that is true.

Only as a means to an end (Profit), not as an end in itself.

Why?

What? I mean what the fuck? What are you even saying?

And you also don't know what bourgeois means, or you don't understand why there's a meaningful distinction between those who have to work and those who can survive off of other peoples labor.

Did I take the bait?

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

Read this, study it and demonstrate to the opponent that Capitalism exists only through the violence of the state.

Peasants worked common land and land rented from large landowners until most farming was deliberately destroyed to force people away from a means of semi-independent lifestyle towards factories.

Capitalism came about by force QED

Remind him that the NAP is a meme.
No really just plainly state "The NAP is a meme this discussion is pointless".

Also, governments would obviously form, rendering an ancap revolution null, since humanity tends to form governments and there isn't enough incentive for them not to.

History.. History, History.

Talk about companies forcing miners into debt peonage and paying them in company script.

Read as much as you can about the glided age and the industrial revolution and hit them with all the crap porky will do when he isn't regulated.

toxic patent medicines, tainted falsely labeled food products, dangerous work places, child labor, etc etc.

Put the idea out there.. and they'll say that could never happen.. and then prove that it did.

"productivity" it's the amount of product produced compared to the number of people employed.

Automation increases it.. but it's not something to celebrate.

The machines eliminate people and skilled labor. The industrial revolution turned skilled weavers out on the street so they could be replaced with child labor.

Fuck Productivity.

Fixed it for you.

The greatest expense for any business is it's employees. Replace them with machines and save money.

How did it go?

The phrasing was shit tho

Typically, debates are meant to convince people on the sidelines. Just sayn'.

"Debates are nothing more than two sides trying to impress the audience more with their rhetorical parlor tricks, and the reactionaries will win every single time in this regard because they already dominate the discourse. If they didn't, we wouldn't need to debate them in the first place!"
Yeah mate he already said that.

Do you have a:
1) Topic of debate
2) Moderator
3) Established format and rules
?

If not, you're having an argument with an ancap tomorrow. Can't really be bothered to "help" someone with an informal slapfight, because you can't know where the debate will go, you don't even have a topic.

about that graph you posted, would you happen to know what year the us was taken off the gold standard?

its 1971 for those wondering end the fed

The gold standard was ended in 1933 by FDR, the last vestiges of the gold standard were cut off by Nixon in 1971.

If this was caused by getting rid of the gold standard, you'd expect to see this trend start in the 30s and merely accelerate in the 70s, rather than start in the 70s.

The fetishization fixation on labor disregards the realities of use value and exchange value.
Which corporations? Small business represent 95% of new hires.
How do you measure labor value? By man-hours?
Movement and romantic leftism is already neo-feudalism with its cults of personality
Egalitarian introduces incentives to not work efficiently.
This isn't realistic. No revolution ever garnered popular support. As long as workers can keep their jobs they will remain mostly disinterested.

no

illuminate me then

it does not matter

because capitalism and market value of free market pulled many people out of poverty. labor theory of value did the opposite

what did you mean by
?

everyone works, even ceo and factory owner

globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

also

im sure if we were writing history against capitalist imperialism like they do for "socialism" these "estimates" would be much higher. funny how statistics change like that

Try to lose with more grace than that stuttering negro you retards sent to debate the TRS guys

please don't be retarded, please understand basic socialism before debating a fascist 8ch.net/leftypol/res/913867.html