ITT: pretend to be a lolbertarian

Thats my favorite one tbh. I think that encapsulates the sheer stupidity of the lolbertarian best.

actually it's corporatism

...

thats a good one too but liberals say that as well. not strictly dogmatic of lolberts

Aren't libertarians literally anarchists lite? They want a small gov't but aren't willing to go all the way?

...

t. stefan molyneux, alex jones, etc.

...

Authoritarianism is bad except when CEOs do it

...

It actually would. Slavery is economically inferior to wage slavery. This is especially true in agriculture, as it requires intensive work during in short periods, when seeding and harvesting the crop. Using seasonal workers is cheaper, as slaves will add expenses all year around.
Sickness among workers is also a much smaller problem when using wage work, they don't work, they don't get paid, and if they die you can just hire a new one. Buying a slave requires a significant investment, which is lost when the slave dies.
Slavery would be abandoned as a way of cutting cost to increase profit
Slaves could possibly exist under ancap society, but they would probably be part of the middle class, functioning as managers of seasonal workers, and some non seasonal work, like house keepers, but they would be more of a status symbol.

nod an argumend :DDDD

yes, and that is why capitalists now use prison labor and nazis used ostarbeiters

if state pays the bill for labor reprodution, there's no problem with slave labor

Exactly, an inmate costs around $47,102 a year in californa, the median per capita income is $30,441.
Slavery would not exists with out the state to prop it up.

Who would build roads?
Where we are going we will need no roads! We will have muh jetpacks!

It would still exist in situations where you aren't able to coer- er, attract free labour to particularly remote or unpleasant jobs. Like old-style sugarcane farming and processing. In that case slavery is still an economic necessity until you can people the land with enough desperate poor people accustomed to the local climate.

And even then, your main draw to free labour is that you can pay them even less on the whole. If there's a large enough industrial reserve and there's a certain degree of self-provisioning going on, you can even pay them less than they need to survive each day, as they'll make up the difference with labour in their free time, ensuring that he has no money to buy products from you or others and thus sustain the malformed capitalist system, because you as employer see only your short-term profit as your sole priority and reject any body that might organize this struggle of all against all because it goes against your religious notion of the market as omnipotent benevolent force, that it might upset this kindly master that in its benevolence leads you yearly into new crises of falling profit and money hoarding.

THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT YOU STATIST

...

Welcome to a chan faggot
Also
Not an argument

This guy wins

Thanks, it's about time I get some recognition for my work.

youtube.com/watch?v=rJFcpRxju2g

you cant be serious nigger, yours is a meme tier "ideology", if you drop the Anarco and start calling yourselves fascist capitalist wannabe warlords, I would take your opinion a little bit more serious.

testing.

Yes, agree, if there are no workers willing to do the labor, slavery becomes necessary if production is to be maintained. But that would mean your investment would probably be spent better elsewhere, as investing in slavery is not compatible with profit maximization.
And to be fair, the same goes under socialism, if a worker don't want to do the work, you have to abandon the production or use force.

The rest of your argument is in favor of markets abandoning slave labor so I'll just agree, but ignore the part about tendency of the rate of profit to fall, since that's another debate and not really relevant to the topic of slavery.

Yes, and that's why the South seceded and fought a fucking CIVIL WAR to keep the plantation economy intact, in defiance of Northern industrialists and mechanized agriculture.

How is slavery less productive, serious question. You have to cover the costs of the worker's living either way.

this must be the reason.

But if the capitalist pays all of a worker's wages that they use to purchase and maintain their own standard of living, then given identical living, the costs will be the same.

The civil war was fought because the south was trying to industrialize using slave labor, and outcompeted the north

Is incorrect, slavery has outcompeted wage labor often in history
Although no area of capitalism without a state could compete with an area of capitalism with a state anyways

Slavery and wage labour are almost the same, imho.

It's actually good of you to point out that proles with average labor power (replaceable at the drop of a hat because there is a reserve army of labor) have living standards comparable to slaves

but with out pay for guards to keep your slaves from escaping, the initial expenses to require a slave, the risk of losing your initial investment in the slave due to it getting sick or injured.

In a capitalist economy?

tnx ITT: pretend to be a lolbertarian ;)

The argument is that when you don't need your slaves right away, you let them go off and be slaves for other people so you don't have to pay for their food and shelter while they're not doing productive work on your behalf.

Socialism by definition does not include coerced labour. Since the MoP is controlled by workers, if they don't work they more or less can't enjoy things. It would be like a capitalist choosing not to have a business and just burn his money.

Likewise, you're assuming that investing in slavery is inherently unprofitable. Not so. If you're dealing with a highly prized commodity (let's say sugar) that you can't necessarily harvest using a free population. If you can make more from being able to exploit that resource than you lose from having to feed and clothe slaves when they're not turning a profit from you, you're still incentivized to use them.

Naturally, it'd be cheaper if you could have free labour (assuming no unions or strikes), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily better for free labour, since the going rate for their work is going to be a little over to sub-slave levels anyway or else cappies wouldn't see any reason to abandon slavery.

Thus, wage slavery is comparable to slavery inasfar as material conditions are concerned.

...

Yes, and who would move to a foreign land and work back breaking and dangerous work in an oldtime sugar plantation, so that we all can enjoy sugar in our tea? Only a slave or a very well payed worker.

Yes, investing in slavery could be profitable, but only if the same investment made in cheaper wage labor would have a smaller profit. So yes, it could happen, but as a general rule slave labor under a free market would be deincentivized.

yes, the same or worse.

*not necessarily in the same line of industry.

don't worry comrads all "capitalists" anarcho or not will get a bullet to the back of the head when the revolution happens

:^)

we should meme "the answer to 1984 is 1936"

the flag made it too obvious 8.5/10

If only there was some way to mitigate the effort required to accomplish such work.

Some sort of automized contraption powered by dynamic force, perhaps.

I didn't realize the Yes Men lurked. Hi boys!