Has Porky Won?

the only solution now is to achieve the singularity, so that we are able to destroy capitalism from within

They don't eat pork, buddy.

Here a pro-tip, All of capitalism is owned by, wait for it..

CAPITALISTS

Yeah.

Captialism isn't inherently bad.

I ain't the wisest on the block, but it seems to me that government cohesion wit business is causing everyone problems.

The Jews seem, at least to me, to be a driving force behind it.

With them in the picture, no matter what political ideology you follow, it's manifestation will have them at the top, regardless if the beast you breed is supposed to be headless.

And how do you think that's would happen retard?

Capitalism inherently leads to what we're seeing today.

I disagree. I think it leads to what we saw a decade ago. I see government increasingly involving itself in the affairs of free people.

And what do you mean "how I think it would happen"? They will just adopt your cause if it's winning. Money is power no matter how much you hate it, and they can use it. Soros is already jumping on your bandwagon.

Always kill a traitor before an enemy, jimjam.

Actually, make that a few decades ago.

My mistake.

...

Yes?

Typical leftist discourse.

Don't respond to bait

I'm not baiting, if that's what you are implying.

You are fucking stupid because we had much tighter goverment regulations, specially on taxes before austrian memenomics

I don't remember the government having as many regulations on business in the united states.

its ok, one day you will learn history

A response a panic response to serious complex issues, not the least of which was the failing of banks, which in my opinion, in their current state, are not only corrupt, but immoral.

serious complex issues surrounding a complete lack of control to the banking sector, and very few workers rights

kinda what happened in 2008, yet the "austerity" measures proposed by neololberals did jack shit

there is no "goverment involving itself in the affairs of free people", but a complete control of the goverment by the banks and other major industries to be able to exploit the people

So we can agree that banks aren't a good idea unless they have tight reigns on them.

That's why I believe their should be one bank controlled by the people. The people should print their own money, hence a true constitutionalism state ought to control it.

That is my fundamental disagreement with ancap. I think a state should exist to project the will of the people to a small extent. All else should be handled at the state level.

I'm sure we both agree that business, if it is allowed to exist, should be allowed any involvement at all with the state. Business, church, and state should never touch. Rather than government being a puppet master, it should be a small, rigid shield the people use to protect themselves and their interests.

Business collusion with government is one reason why I am strictly against big government. The smaller the government, the less effect collusion has.

Though I do not wish to restrict the freedoms of anyone, including bankers, I think that they are a scourge, especially considering I'm a whack job who thinks globalists are controlling them.

So many fucking typos.

I'm sure you can piece together what I am trying to say.

I think my keyboard is running out of batter.

or rather a multitude of non-profit banks, regulated by a central authority, whose only job is to provide very cheap credit at people, to boost economic output

they should never touch indeed, but that doesn't mean buisnesses and churches shouldn't be subjected to the same moral and legal system mere mortals have to

this phrase is meaningless

smaller in what sense? actual size? number of people involved?, how much authority the goverment has?

a small goverment isn't just low taxes

you could have a very big goverment, both in size and strength that enforces a very liberal platform for taxes, lets say you can directly decide where are your taxes will be spent, instead of just getting robbed by them

Is this big goverment? the size of the goverment just exist to enforce the rule of law, but it doesn't control the act of taxation, just that it follows the law

Alright, so I'd say we agree on quite a lot.

When I say big government, I mean one with minimum involvement, low taxes, rigidity, and without the influence of buiness.

That last part is my own addition, as some of my peers over here in the economic right seem to believe small government can take business donations and the such like. I disagree, because if government becomes beholden to business, then is it not sized by business?

So yeah, the phrase does have meaning, you just (understandably) weren't aware of the context.

No. If it is non-profit, their isn't any real competition for capital, which means having a multitude isn't necessary. If ONE is beholden to the people is will provide what the people are looking for. '

Not only that, but this bank could still make profit. As opposed to using incrementally increasing interest (which is great for truing the population into debt slaves), a predetermined, set amount of interest could be charged.

but this is again such a bold statement
minimum involvement on what? how?

how would a minimum involvement goverment be able to fight againts, let's say global warming? or perhaps a crisis?
a goverment needs to be involved, otherwise what is the point of the goverment? goverment should be involved in legal issues, in the rule of law, in the very essence of politics

sure a goverment shouldn't force you on how to dress, like in certain islamic countries or shouldn't decide weather or not you do military service, but thats outside the economic, legal or politic areas

heres the thing, you are implying goverment would be the propietor of buisness therefore buisness would be the propietor of the goverment I absolutely agree
the goverment however is the propietor of the rule of law, therefore can interact with buisness to enforce it

and this goverment should be democratic and voluntary, othwerise we end with the same lobby system we have today

unless the bank is lead purely by voluntary people with no profit there is the opportunity of corruption

funny that you talk about morals yet defend profit from banking
such a terrible meme dude

Alright, I see where I've gone wrong.

Minimum involvement in terms of regulation
Minimum involvement in terms of taxation
Minimum involvement in terms of restrictions on actions in private property.

The list can go on. Ultimately it's an underpinning term that represents the rest.

There.

I agree. I've always agreed with this. I'm not doing a very good job at presenting my position, I apologize.

I suppose if the bank is perpetrate but connected from he government as a semi independent organization, we would have issues. Good point. However I'm not sure how you would have one government controlling several organizations, and how doing so would prevent corruption. I'm open to ideas.

Well, I still believe in compensation for service. It's the damage that banking in it's current state (I am a whack job that thinks it's the jews, I'll admit) that I have an issue with.

I forgot some points.

I believe legislation should exist for crisis. What that legislation is, I don't know.

I think that global warming is bullshit, personally, and is no good excuse to sudden give globalists power over industry.

M E M E

but here's the thing, we don't need an specific indivifual to "service" us as a politician

politics is the science done by the people for the people If you want to do politics, let say, improve the well-being of your community you go there, do your thing and get out

same with banking

no one will get paid because that will lead to people having to do politics and banking as a mean of living, none of which are actually productive from an utalitarian pov

you are not giving power to anybody by engaging in policies to avoid global warming and pollution

I mean sure we can meme about global warming being real or not, perhaps pollution is a better word choice

policies to avoid pollution does not give any power to the "globalists" the """""west""""" already has a massive advantage over other countries in regards of oil and gas technology, developing alternative fuel and materials is only going to increase its economic output even more

You make some really good, points, and I'd say you've bested me in most aspect, but I've got to get going now.

It's been a pleasure, surprisingly. Just to wrap it up with some non contentious retorts:

I know.

If globalists own the government, and the government is the one enforcing the remedies to climate change, then yeah, people can get power.

The whole constitutionalism philosophy is keeping power out of the hands of too few people, not necessarily because they will do something wrong, but because it's a possibility.

When that happens, and if it's profitable, it will catch on, I hope.

Rubbish.

Soil erosion is the real killer.

Underrated post.

You're wrong.

One could make the argument that the internal contradictions of capitalism are already starting to have an effect on the system. The numerous repeated market failures recently are some indication. However, I think at this point Porky has shaped society in such a way that attempting to directly change the material conditions via a traditional vanguard-party revolution is virtually impossible and it would take a crisis or crises of serious magnitude to throw off the existing order. I don't think the base-superstructure relationship is binary, however, and the superstructure can still shape the base if the base becomes more immutable. I know le cultural marxism is tossed around as a meme here but culture jamming and detournement can both be effective tools for building revolutionary potential. In time, the heterogeneous qualities of this kind of decentralized society must be smoothed out for the purpose of revolution while simultaneously also facilitating rhizomatic thought patterns. That is the challenge for the future.
This of course should be complemented with a more directly militaristic approach in 3rd world countries that haven't reached the stage of capitalist development as the West.