Ask a Right Libertarian anything

[Tik-Tok]

Hello Revleft. This is my first post here. I am new so excuse me if I posted in the wrong place. I read the FAQ but I thought I'd post in the politics section as an all rounder.

I am a British Right leaning Libertarian. I have many different views that probably contradict your own so ask me anything but if you are easily offended then I suggest you avoid posting as I am very vocal about my opinions :o I enjoy US politics aswell as UK politics and I like to discuss with people of opposing views.

Before you ask, I do indeed support Ron Paul and on the British side, UKIP. If you want to ask why, by all means.


Cheers,
Tik-Tok

[tradeunionsupporter]

Why are Libertarians against helping the Poor with Welfare ?

[RGacky3]

Because they believe in the free market, and if the poor are still poor with a free market they deserve to be poor, but they believe that under a free market a lot of poverty would'nt exist.

Which is untrue because the more money a person has the easier it is to make money and dispossess, the more money he has the more power he has, for example to suppress wages, to control workers, to even control things like housing and so on.

[Property Is Robbery]

How do you sleep at night? :lol:


On a more serious note.. How can you believe in volunteerism as a solution to poverty, homelessness etc.

Also what do you think about vagrancy laws.

And are you a christian? If not I don't see how you could support Ron Paul

[Property Is Robbery]

Oh no, youre banned. you shouldve posted in OI dumbass

[PhoenixAsh]

Oh no, youre banned. you shouldve posted in OI dumbass


actually...he should have refrained from defending white supremacy movements...

[RedZezz]

What is socialism and communism?

I ask because most right-wingers I talk to don't know or have an incorrect definition, so I generally like to get a feel for their theoretical understanding.

Hint: If you say government ownsership of the economy, one-man dictatorship, Obama, or any form of totalitarian ideology, you are WRONG!

[Property Is Robbery]

actually...he should have refrained from defending white supremacy movements...
Which thread was that in?

Edit: Nvm found it

[TikTok]

We are not. Libertarianism is a wide ideology varying from total anarchism to anarcho communism. Libertarianism can simply mean less government. I am specifically a Right Libertarian.

Welfare is bane on a large portion of those who are on it. It creates a dependence on the state and it should only be limited to the most desperate of people. A fantastic example of the negatives of welfare are black communities. Communities in the past that were once poverty ridden are in a much worse state than before. The culture of entitlements has created a dependence on the government which is poisonous.

Thomas Sowell- Welfare
/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI

Thomas Sowell- Affirmation in Education
/watch?v=pEOlK4y8AUo&t=5m55s

Walter Williams- Up From the Projects
/watch?v=7butJGdUmK0

Welfare is also a fairly broad term so it can't really be condensed, it depends how you look or define welfare. Not only does it create dependency, it has also increased over time to the point where it is unsustainable. It is almost the same as the military budget in the US and in the UK it has doubled over ten years.

Economic/Fiscal conservatism is best for working and poor famillies. Like I said, only the most desperate would recieve it.

Think of it as similar to food aid sent out to poorer economic countries. People think it is a good thing to give starving people food but they dont think of the consequences. Lets say a farmer spends months of time working thier fields to produce a very limited yield. They then go to sell this hard earned yield but they cannot sell it. Thier market is eating free food aid. This farmer cannot compete with this competition. Therefore he also grows hungry and will start using the food aid given freely by western countries who can afford it.

This kills a farming industry and creates ever increasing dependency. Those starving will breed more starving and will need more and more aid.

It is unsustainable and cruel to deprive a country of it's independence. This is the same for people. Some people truly need it, others don't. You MUST think of the consequences. You cannot let emotion guide you. Always use logic and think laterally.

[Property Is Robbery]

How did you get un banned? Also new topic for you (along with the questions I already asked please). How is National Socialism anything but a third way economic system?

Edit: I have never heard a libertarian claim that National Socialism is Socialism. I thought you were supposed to be knowledgeable about economics. Ive only heard Glenn beck loonies spew that shit.

[RGacky3]

It creates a dependence on the state and it should only be limited to the most desperate of people. A fantastic example of the negatives of welfare are black communities. Communities in the past that were once poverty ridden are in a much worse state than before. The culture of entitlements has created a dependence on the government which is poisonous.


Bullshit, compare a country with a HUGE welfare state, i.e. Norway, you literally could live comfortably and never work, 2% unemployment, same with sweeden.

What creates the dependancy is the fact that the market fails the vast majority of the population.


Think of it as similar to food aid sent out to poorer economic countries. People think it is a good thing to give starving people food but they dont think of the consequences. Lets say a farmer spends months of time working thier fields to produce a very limited yield. They then go to sell this hard earned yield but they cannot sell it. Thier market is eating free food aid. This farmer cannot compete with this competition. Therefore he also grows hungry and will start using the food aid given freely by western countries who can afford it.


Except thats not what happens, there are many studies on food markets and why people starve, and its not due to free food, its do to many factors, most of which stem from the for-profit nature of food production.

[Property Is Robbery]

you will be banned again soon so answer me quick. You cant create sock puppets man

[TikTok]

Bullshit, compare a country with a HUGE welfare state, i.e. Norway, you literally could live comfortably and never work, 2% unemployment, same with sweeden.

What creates the dependancy is the fact that the market fails the vast majority of the population.

I'm a Brit. You have no idea what a welfare state is. The Market fails because, most especially in Britain, it is tied down by government intervention and the symbiotic relationship between government and corporates. Monopolies are subsidized and so are the many markets which exist. For instance dairy and potatoes farms are subsidized. If they produce over a certain yield, they lose thier subsidy so many famers throw away excess to keep thier subsidy. This has created more and more farmers all living off this subsidy. This in turn gave the grocery market giants an oppurtunity to monopolise thier producers. They colluded to strong arm thier producers for a cheaper price.

Much of the Uk market is susidized subtly. This relationship needs severing and to do this you restrict the governments ability to do what it ahs been doing. Taxes are high, economy is dropping and in response private companies move elsewhere. This creates more unemployment. Our welfare ahs doubled and more people are out of work. The governments response?

More immigration... less jobs.. lower wages...

It's an unsustainable spiral with so many factors all proving that government failed... not the market.

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2111686]Except thats not what happens, there are many studies on food markets and why people starve, and its not due to free food, its do to many factors, most of which stem from the for-profit nature of food production.

There are other reasons for the starvation but the solution isn't giving free food.

[Broletariat]

There are other reasons for the starvation but the solution isn't giving free food.

Food, it won't fix starvation.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Edit: I have never heard a libertarian claim that National Socialism is Socialism. I thought you were supposed to be knowledgeable about economics. Ive only heard Glenn beck loonies spew that shit.

From a right libertarian view it makes some sense, being that the state is used to dictate the growth of the economy to a large extent. Obviously, you and I contend that there is no similarity but his comparison makes some sense from the right.

[MattShizzle]

Edit: I have never heard a libertarian claim that National Socialism is Socialism. I thought you were supposed to be knowledgeable about economics. Ive only heard Glenn beck loonies spew that shit.

I've heard that idiotic claim plenty of times.

[Property Is Robbery]

From a right libertarian view it makes some sense, being that the state is used to dictate the growth of the economy to a large extent. Obviously, you and I contend that there is no similarity but his comparison makes some sense from the right.
I get that. I also see how some libertarians would think that. However I have never heard any of them say it because it just sounds so damn ignorant and conservative

[TikTok]

I'll try and answer one at a time here. I'm only human.


How do you sleep at night? :lol:
On a more serious note.. How can you believe in volunteerism as a solution to poverty, homelessness etc.

There are varying degrees to Libertarianism. I am a sort of breed who thinks more like UKIP than say Ron Paul but I can get behind Ron Paul because he is the solution to many of the US' problems.


Also what do you think about vagrancy laws.

Not sure. Is this the illegality of homeless sleeping on public property? Or Homeless not able to get a job. There are many vagrancy laws. I dont see a problem with people who want to live homeless. Its a public street. If they want to sleep there then they should be able to.


And are you a christian? If not I don't see how you could support Ron Paul

Ron Puals religous views eman nothing to me. It's his political views I care about. I'm an atheist and it doesn't bother me.

[Property Is Robbery]

I'll try and answer one at a time here. I'm only human.



There are varying degrees to Libertarianism. I am a sort of breed who thinks more like UKIP than say Ron Paul but I can get behind Ron Paul because he is the solution to many of the US' problems.



Not sure. Is this the illegality of homeless sleeping on public property? Or Homeless not able to get a job. There are many vagrancy laws. I dont see a problem with people who want to live homeless. Its a public street. If they want to sleep there then they should be able to.



Ron Puals religous views eman nothing to me. It's his political views I care about. I'm an atheist and it doesn't bother me.
No one wants to be homeless...

Ron Paul's brand of Libertarianism is based highly on his religious views. The fact that he calls himself a Libertarian but still is against gambling, prostitution, gay marriage etc. is a fucking disgrace that comes from his religious views

[TikT0k]

Im repeatedly getting banned. I dont understand why. Im banned yet the thread is appoved. I go to the opposing views section then I am banned there.

Isn't this a fairly liberal site? Isn't free speech an accepted ideology? I'm polite, I don't spread hate not and sort of ''facism.''

Why all the banning? I went to a section designed specifically for alternative views and yet im still banned repeatedly.

A simple answer would really be nice. Thank you.

[Broletariat]

Im repeatedly getting banned. I dont understand why. Im banned yet the thread is appoved. I go to the opposing views section then I am banned there.

Isn't this a fairly liberal site? Isn't free speech an accepted ideology? I'm polite, I don't spread hate not and sort of ''facism.''

Why all the banning? I went to a section designed specifically for alternative views and yet im still banned repeatedly.

A simple answer would really be nice. Thank you.


Certain views are NOT tolerated here.

This is not a liberal website, we are Communists. We do not believe in "free speech." From what I understand you defend racist institutions or something so that's probably why you're being repeatedly banned.

[Thug Lessons]

Video question:

7KGRZuWXVhA

[TikT0k]

No one wants to be homeless...

Ron Paul's brand of Libertarianism is based highly on his religious views. The fact that he calls himself a Libertarian but still is against gambling, prostitution, gay marriage etc. is a fucking disgrace that comes from his religious views

No no no. He may be personally against it but he doesn't want to ban it all all. He says it should be entirely up to the state to decide. If the state wants to legalise drugs and all forms you just mentioned. Then they can.

It's not religous at all. And yes. some people do WANT to be homeless. I have met quite a few myself. One such pair were some old has been anarchists who have travelled the world.

Charming pair. The guy had no teeth though. Also called himself Shark. I had an abundance of ciggarettes and we smoked the hours away on a bench on the high street.

[TikT0k]

Certain views are NOT tolerated here.

This is not a liberal website, we are Communists. We do not believe in "free speech." From what I understand you defend racist institutions or something so that's probably why you're being repeatedly banned.

Defending free speech, not the institutions themselves. The last thing I want are some skinheads running things.

I was on the ''Opposing Ideas'' part. You know, that part of the site where people with my views can post.

[#FF0000]

You're getting banned over and over because you're bad at communicating your ideas so people think you're a white supremacist.

We've had libertarians come around here before so don't think that's what this is about.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No one wants to be homeless...

Ron Paul's brand of Libertarianism is based highly on his religious views. The fact that he calls himself a Libertarian but still is against gambling, prostitution, gay marriage etc. is a fucking disgrace that comes from his religious views

:confused: I was under the impression that Paul is against prostitution and gambling in principle, but he believes the bigger crime is the government throwing people in jail for it.

I have to admit, the man is insane, but his answer to the glaucoma patient four years ago was nice to hear from any politician, let alone a Republican: I will never use the federal government to punish someone for using marijuana or other drugs. That may not be exact but it was close.

Also, a republican debate goes:
"We obvioulsy need to stand up around the world and show we're strong and still #1"
"As President I will use our military to make sure we're safe, if that means more action against certain, uh, enemies than that's what, uh, I'm gunna do."
"We need to stop apologizing for America around the world"
"I'm gonna send in Jack Bauer to kill 'em all!"
"As President I will close down our bases around the world and disband the American Empire, which is an Empire and has led to us being hated around the world, caused endless war, and we can no longer pretend it's affordable."

I mean, I detest his politics, but I am looking forward to the GOP debates :lol: Yeah suck on that newt!

[Die Rote Fahne]

Why do you believe that coorporations should be allowed to collaborate with each other and force an 15 hour work day, 6 day work week, pay low wages, fire people just cause you disagree with them on something.

Also, why do you believe that private militias, that manage to do well, will not merge and form a monopoly, then collaborate with big corporations and decide to form a government ? (in the case that you are an "anarcho-capitalist")

[#FF0000]

coorporationsdon't ask libertarians about corporations. this is a mistake people keep making and it's dumb.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Certain views are NOT tolerated here.

This is not a liberal website, we are Communists. We do not believe in "free speech." From what I understand you defend racist institutions or something so that's probably why you're being repeatedly banned.
Some communists believe in free speech.

EDIT: But I agree with this site's putting restrictions on capitalists and banning fascists. This is a website, not real life.

[Agent Ducky]

You like Ron Paul? He said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act.... Do you agree with him on this premise?

[TikT0k]

:confused: I was under the impression that Paul is against prostitution and gambling in principle, but he believes the bigger crime is the government throwing people in jail for it.

I have to admit, the man is insane, but his answer to the glaucoma patient four years ago was nice to hear from any politician, let alone a Republican: I will never use the federal government to punish someone for using marijuana or other drugs. That may not be exact but it was close.

Also, a republican debate goes:
"We obvioulsy need to stand up around the world and show we're strong and still #1"
"As President I will use our military to make sure we're safe, if that means more action against certain, uh, enemies than that's what, uh, I'm gunna do."
"We need to stop apologizing for America around the world"
"I'm gonna send in Jack Bauer to kill 'em all!"
"As President I will close down our bases around the world and disband the American Empire, which is an Empire and has led to us being hated around the world, caused endless war, and we can no longer pretend it's affordable."

I mean, I detest his politics, but I am looking forward to the GOP debates :lol: Yeah suck on that newt!

You say he is insane, why is this? I shall try to find a video of him saying that given the choice he would pardon anyone commited of possessing any type of drug. Specifically marijuana users.

He was also talking about no prison sentences for non violent offenders. Perhaps being palced under House Arrest instead.

I don't think many of you understand Libertarianism and its wide ideology. You seem to think h's the batshit insane nutter.

The man has no backers, he refuses any corporate lobbying. All the media networks despise him and FOX really went for him on the debates. Its fairly obvious the corporations dont like him nor want him. This is becuase his solutions would actually work.

These corporations require government help. Without it, they are alone in a higly competitive market.

[Rooster]

LNjTPZW7GCU

[TikT0k]

You like Ron Paul? He said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act.... Do you agree with him on this premise?

I think you should watch some of the videos I posted of Thomas Sowell. Particualrily this one

Thomas Sowell on Civl Rights
/watch?v=pEOlK4y8AUo

He is a black Libertarian who speaks on the negatives of the act. What and I dont really speak on behalf of all Libertarians here but the parts of the act were sound, others not so.

The segregation by government was wrong. Fundamentally wrong. So that part of the act makes sense.

But things like Dicrimination, Affirmation are also wrong. The videos explain in more detail on the consequences of these acts and how they have taken a life of thier own.

[Agent Ducky]

OK, so Tik-tok made a sock puppet. It all makes sense now. k.

[Die Rote Fahne]

don't ask libertarians about corporations. this is a mistake people keep making and it's dumb.

Sorry sorry, "very large and successful businesses who have managed to employ many many people, expand across the land, and have accumulated lots and lots of capital".

That should save me...right? :lol:

[Rooster]

Haha. A British right leaning libertarian? Fuck. Are you a dentist?

[The Man]

You say he is insane, why is this? I shall try to find a video of him saying that given the choice he would pardon anyone commited of possessing any type of drug. Specifically marijuana users.

He was also talking about no prison sentences for non violent offenders. Perhaps being palced under House Arrest instead.

I don't think many of you understand Libertarianism and its wide ideology. You seem to think h's the batshit insane nutter.

The man has no backers, he refuses any corporate lobbying. All the media networks despise him and FOX really went for him on the debates. Its fairly obvious the corporations dont like him nor want him. This is becuase his solutions would actually work.

These corporations require government help. Without it, they are alone in a higly competitive market.

I'm going to try and figure out what type of Libertarian this is, with a simple question.

Why do you think Communism will not work?

[Bronco]

Certain views are NOT tolerated here.

This is not a liberal website, we are Communists. We do not believe in "free speech." From what I understand you defend racist institutions or something so that's probably why you're being repeatedly banned.

Dont think you speak for everyone, I am not a Communist, nor am I against free speech

[TikT0k]

Sorry sorry, "very large and successful businesses who have managed to employ many many people, expand across the land, and have accumulated lots and lots of capital".

That should save me...right? :lol:

Well it is an open term. I can understand your anger and most libertarians do too. These corporations lobby government for thier changes to be made. They then use thier media outlets to promote the politicians they want to win. This system has run for decades and it has failed. Governemts are corrupt and thier increase in power over the conomy makes them easy to bribe tools for these corporations.

The idea is to seperate the two. Make it so that Government has no impact upon them so a competitive market can thrive. Im not saying police, frie, libaries, military or public roads should be ended, merely the relationship between private busines and government. Make it so that lobbying is pointless.

The corproations fear Ron Paul becuase that is what he proposes. If his ideas and politics benefited the corporations you hate then why do they despise him? It is ebacuse it would work. Monoploies can only thive on government hadnouts and help. Without it they are alone in the competitive market. In a free market, monopolies fail.

[Bronco]

How come this guy is banned one minute then seemingly not the next?

[La Comédie Noire]

How does it feel to hold ideas that the capitalist class will never implement?

[TikT0k]

How come this guy is banned one minute then seemingly not the next?

Because I have made about half a dozen accounts. It's not difficult. Im following the rules and I was banned for no reason and no justification.

I think they know Im not much of a bad poster so they have left me be for the moment. Im not annoying you am I?

[TikT0k]

How does it feel to hold ideas that the capitalist class will never implement?

They aren't true capitalists are they? They never were. Capitalist is an open term anyway. Everyone has capital, even the Soviet Union had capital. Who owns the capital is the question.

[La Comédie Noire]

They aren't true capitalists are they? They never were. Capitalist is an open term anyway. Everyone has capital, even the Soviet Union had capital. Who owns the capital is the question.


Yes, they are capitalists. A capitalist is someone who invests money in order to receive a greater amount of money in return. There are a number of ways to do this (speculation, money manipulation) but the surest way is to exploit labor.

[PhoenixAsh]

Because I have made about half a dozen accounts. It's not difficult. Im following the rules and I was banned for no reason and no justification.

I think they know Im not much of a bad poster so they have left me be for the moment. Im not annoying you am I?

You were banned because you defended white supremacy as a harmles culture club.

There are plenty of people here who have either parents, grandparents or other family who have lost their lives that obliterates that notion to the world of fairy tales. Not to mention the fact that many of us have scars to prove they are not a debating club for unsavory ideas...either defending themselved or...as the current situation in Greece shows...defending others. Pretty much obliterates your argument.

Now THAT in itself warrants a ban.

Then you continue to make socks. Which, if you have read the rules, pretty much violates them.

[T1kTok]

I'm going to try and figure out what type of Libertarian this is, with a simple question.

Why do you think Communism will not work?

This is beacuse any government given enough power will be corrupted. This is something the Founding Fathers discussed endlessly. Governments must be watched by the people and if they aren't, tyannt follows.

Hasn't history taught you anything? The Soviet Union may have started out as a nice idea but look where it ended. China, South America, Africa, The Middle East. It WILL happen again, it always will. ALL authoritarian governments become tyrannical dictatorships regardless of political ties.

Government should be small and remain small. It is a beast that consumes more power without ever realising the harm. The best government is the least government. Handing over enormous power to so few a people is dangerous.

[Rooster]

What's wrong with collective bargaining?

[hatzel]

Here's one for tik-tok / tik_tok / tiktok / tikt0k / t1ktok / etc:

http://kyon.pl/static/img/remiq.net_11867.jpg

[The Man]

This is beacuse any government given enough power will be corrupted. This is something the Founding Fathers discussed endlessly. Governments must be watched by the people and if they aren't, tyannt follows.

Hasn't history taught you anything? The Soviet Union may have started out as a nice idea but look where it ended. China, South America, Africa, The Middle East. It WILL happen again, it always will. ALL authoritarian governments become tyrannical dictatorships regardless of political ties.

Government should be small and remain small. It is a beast that consumes more power without ever realising the harm. The best government is the least government. Handing over enormous power to so few a people is dangerous.

So you basically have no idea what Communism is at all? If you call the Soviet Union 'Communist', then you literally have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't understand how you think a communist society has 'Dictators' or 'Authoritarian Governments', because then it wouldn't be Communism.

Actually, a Communist society, probably would have the least amount of government ever.

[T1kTok]

You were banned because you defended white supremacy as a harmles culture club.

There are plenty of people here who have either parents, grandparents or other family who have lost their lives that obliterates that notion to the world of fairy tales. Not to mention the fact that many of us have scars to prove they are not a debating club for unsavory ideas...either defending themselved or...as the current situation in Greece shows...defending others. Pretty much obliterates your argument.

Now THAT in itself warrants a ban.

Then you continue to make socks. Which, if you have read the rules, pretty much violates them.

Socks? I think NZ is just a funny friend. He's being playful. Unless of course sock means alt accounts? Of course. I was banned without justification. Your reasoning is awful.

I support free speech, I do not support white supremacy. How hard is that to understand? Am I religous fanatic for supporting religous freedom? Am I a communist for supporting free speech in communism?

No. I support free speech of all kinds. I may not like what you say but I will fight for you right to say it.

[T1kTok]

So you basically have no idea what Communism is at all? If you call the Soviet Union 'Communist', then you literally have NO idea what you are talking about.

Actually, a Communist society, probably would have the least amount of government ever.

There are different types of communism. I think you are talking about anarcho communism where people voluntarily collectivize. I think Marx warned about the danger of states but noone listened.

Unfortunately such an ideologies fault lies in the illusion that anarchism is a possible power structure. Anarchism is the gap between power structures.. It depends on voluntary collectivization. Thats difficult seeing as the one massive problem lies in this one comment by the Great Frank Zappa.

''Communism can't work, people like to own stuff''

[#FF0000]

Sorry sorry, "very large and successful businesses who have managed to employ many many people, expand across the land, and have accumulated lots and lots of capital".

That should save me...right? :lol:

Yup. Keep in mind that "corporation" is a legal thing. Libertarians will all say UH I OPPOSE CORPORATIONS TOO. Because they do.

[Rooster]

Funny how libertarians are mental degenerates.

[#FF0000]

''Communism can't work, people like to own stuff''

People can own things in communism. Just not capital, which is owned in common.

I'm gonna reiterate that I really don't think you know what we advocate.

[T1kTok]

Here's one for tik-tok / tik_tok / tiktok / tikt0k / t1ktok / etc:

GET A LIFE



Says the person with a 2,033 post count.

[hatzel]

Says the person with a 2,033 post count.

Indeed. And never been banned once, can you believe it? :)

[Thug Lessons]

People can own things in communism. Just not capital, which is owned in common.

I'm gonna reiterate that I really don't think you know what we advocate.
Ah yes, communism, the system where capital is owned in common.

[Thug Lessons]

Says the person with a 2,033 post count.
Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting.

[Tactic]

Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting. Stop posting.

Why? Im not breaking any rules, Im polite, Im in the section designed for my view points yet you are the ones banning me and for what reason? Why have a board for opposing views then ban people when they use it?

Explain?

[PhoenixAsh]

Socks? I think NZ is just a funny friend. He's being playful. Unless of course sock means alt accounts? Of course. I was banned without justification. Your reasoning is awful.

I support free speech, I do not support white supremacy. How hard is that to understand? Am I religous fanatic for supporting religous freedom? Am I a communist for supporting free speech in communism?

No. I support free speech of all kinds. I may not like what you say but I will fight for you right to say it.


You did not just defend free speech. You defended the white supremacy movement as harmless



* These people don't commit crime and harm noone. They have views and that is all.
* If people in this thread believe it is wrong to bring up a child in such a way I should ask if the opposite is true?

Saying this about NSM.

Then you went on:



* They are very unlikely to act upon them.
*No they don't. Thats a fairly racist thing to say to assume that white people only join such groups to discuss murdering non-whites.
*Again, having pride in ones race does not mean a lack of respect for other cultures and racial groups


You are an apologist...a fucking stupid one at that who has no idea what white supremacy is and what it stands for.

Its not a social heritage club which celebrates whiteness...its a political and cultural ideology which looks to segregate and dominate other ethnic groups in any given area using force (and if you are a true libertarian you would see and understand that). Youb are also saying this about a neo-Nazi movement. Pretty much THE group of people you do NOT defend on the basis that they are a non violent heritage foundation...they are actually looking and discussing the extermination of people in their political and ideological social get to gethers to celebrate how lovely it is to be white.

You defend white supremacy, you defend racism....NOT free speech.

[#FF0000]

Ah yes, communism, the system where capital is owned in common.

the means of production. u no dis

[Thug Lessons]

the means of production. u no dis
Yeah but capital is much more than means of production, and also neither private property nor capital exist under socialism.

[#FF0000]

Yeah but capital is much more than means of production

yeah that's true.

my bad

[Zapatas Guns]

Hello Revleft. This is my first post here. I am new so excuse me if I posted in the wrong place. I read the FAQ but I thought I'd post in the politics section as an all rounder.

I am a British Right leaning Libertarian. I have many different views that probably contradict your own so ask me anything but if you are easily offended then I suggest you avoid posting as I am very vocal about my opinions :o I enjoy US politics aswell as UK politics and I like to discuss with people of opposing views.

Before you ask, I do indeed support Ron Paul and on the British side, UKIP. If you want to ask why, by all means.


Cheers,
Tik-Tok

Rand Paul supports segregation. To quote him loosely, he said that if a businesses wants to allow whites only then they should have the right to do so. Do you support this position and if you do how can you justify the morality behind that?

[Die Rote Fahne]

yeah that's true.

my bad
Marxian economics views capital as, well, profit basically.

Ergo, it is abolished along with money in communism. Shared in socialism.

[alegab]

If TikTok/T1kToK/whatever comes back:
"Of course the general community rules are still valid here: No posts which are rascist, anti-semitic, sexist, homophobic, knowingly false and/or defamatory, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy. " As far as I know the UKIP has many of these in their ideology, above all the "discriminatory" part, and the UKIP says much more with their speeches and protests than with what's written in paper by their members

This is pretty clear by itself: "Duplicate Accounts

Members registered on this board are not permittted to create additional accounts. Any duplicate accounts found will be unconditionaly banned, and the original account will receive a warning point.

If the duplicate account was an attempt at circumventing restriction, the original restricted account will besides receiving a warning point also be suspended for a week."

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Rand Paul supports segregation. To quote him loosely, he said that if a businesses wants to allow whites only then they should have the right to do so. Do you support this position and if you do how can you justify the morality behind that?

He does so from an ideological, not a moral, perspective, just as he praises Rosa Parks at length whilst voting against funding to give her thee medal of freedom or pay for memorials.

He is insane, but he's also a true believer that's for damn sure.

For example, while most GOPers are trying to play down Obama's decision to go get Osama, Paul instead disagrees and says he wouldn't have done it:





Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.


"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"

Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway (http://www.whoradio.com/pages/simonconway.html?article=8557552) whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."

"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters in to London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54822.html

[clydefrog]

So you basically have no idea what Communism is at all? If you call the Soviet Union 'Communist', then you literally have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't understand how you think a communist society has 'Dictators' or 'Authoritarian Governments', because then it wouldn't be Communism.

This is where you're wrong, because there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to give up all of their possessions, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to accept that private ownership is bad, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to brainwash the population into believing that placing yourself and your own ambitions and needs above those of the collective is bad.

There will be no great epiphany when the revolution comes. People will be fed up with the system as it is now, fair enough, but they will not simply give up all they have known all their lives and start singing kumbayah while holding hands, they will still be corrupt and greedy.

This is the great fallacy of the communist master plan. It needs an immensly strong government to convince the population that what it is doing is right, and that what the people have been doing for thousands of years is wrong. You do not believe this super government stage to be true communism, and I agree with you, it is not, because as you said, true communism would have no need for government or state. But the thing is, would be communist countries never ever get past this state of big government. They never reach utopia, because the power they have over the population corrupts them utterly, and they will never reluinquish said power, and they all inevitably become authoritarian states.

And so we come true circle. At this point, you will probably hit me with a No True Scotsman argument, and I will know you can't refute me.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, it is hard to refute a non argument :rolleyes:
Perhaps if you knew what "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant, than we could talk. But if you're going to just assert things... there's really no chance of the discussion moving forward.

[ZombieRothbard]

Rand Paul supports segregation. To quote him loosely, he said that if a businesses wants to allow whites only then they should have the right to do so. Do you support this position and if you do how can you justify the morality behind that?

I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian, so I will answer this question since it is one that is commonly brought up.

First of all, I don't support segregation, which is why I would oppose the Jim Crow laws and the government enforced segregation. Property rights however is a very different animal. We can use Revleft as an example. You folks do not allow fascists and white supremacists on your website. You are basically asserting a "property right", and you are doing so on the grounds that you are a "club" or "organization" that has selective membership requirements.

If you guys ran a cafe cooperative, would you hire police officers to work part time? How about military personnel? How about white supremacists? If you turn them away, you are exercising voluntary association and property rights.

If a white trash racist group wants to exclude hiring people based on some sort of arbitrary physical characteristic like skin color, they should have the right to do so, in the same way that you guys should have a right to refuse to serve police officers or hire them.

Realistically though, it would be professional suicide to do so. Putting a whites only sign up would not only scare away your suppliers, but also your customers. That would be bad PR that would likely put you out of business. But if a bunch of white trash want to go set up a tavern so they can watch NASCAR, have Milwakees Beast on tap, and exclude people from their storefront, they should be able to do it. Just as you guys should have the right to go set up your vegan cafe, and exclude fascist cops and white supremacists from it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian, so I will answer this question since it is one that is commonly brought up.

First of all, I don't support segregation, which is why I would oppose the Jim Crow laws and the government enforced segregation. Property rights however is a very different animal. We can use Revleft as an example. You folks do not allow fascists and white supremacists on your website. You are basically asserting a "property right", and you are doing so on the grounds that you are a "club" or "organization" that has selective membership requirements.

If you guys ran a cafe cooperative, would you hire police officers to work part time? How about military personnel? How about white supremacists? If you turn them away, you are exercising voluntary association and property rights.

If a white trash racist group wants to exclude hiring people based on some sort of arbitrary physical characteristic like skin color, they should have the right to do so, in the same way that you guys should have a right to refuse to serve police officers or hire them.

Realistically though, it would be professional suicide to do so. Putting a whites only sign up would not only scare away your suppliers, but also your customers. That would be bad PR that would likely put you out of business. But if a bunch of white trash want to go set up a tavern so they can watch NASCAR, have Milwakees Beast on tap, and exclude people from their storefront, they should be able to do it. Just as you guys should have the right to go set up your vegan cafe, and exclude fascist cops and white supremacists from it.

And if wider society becomes accepting of this?

Say muslims are banned from all grocers in a state, they should starve for your precious property rights?

[ZombieRothbard]

And if wider society becomes accepting of this?

Say muslims are banned from all grocers in a state, they should starve for your precious property rights?

I would probably move to that state, open up a grocery store that served muslims, and capture that entire market.

The idea that an entire state could manage something like that without the guns of the state enforcing it is a bit far out there as it is.

[L.A.P.]

The idea that an entire state could manage something like that without the guns of the state enforcing it is a bit far out there as it is.

Who's to say the state wouldn't use guns to enforce this?

[ZombieRothbard]

Who's to say the state wouldn't use guns to enforce this?

The state enforced segregation.

Let me ask you this: would you guys allow fascists to work at your cafe? If company that you are renting this domain from has white nationalist connections, would you still pay for it?

If not, why do you want to take away others right to exercise the same form of voluntary association?

[Die Rote Fahne]

I would probably move to that state, open up a grocery store that served muslims, and capture that entire market.

The idea that an entire state could manage something like that without the guns of the state enforcing it is a bit far out there as it is.

A lot of segregation in the south was voluntary. It's called bigotry, the state can only enforce it if it's popular to begin with.

And really? Youll drop everything? Your job, family, home? Just to open a grocery store in another state? A state in which the populace is largely bigoted and youll likely only get muslim and anti-racist customers?

[ZombieRothbard]

A lot of segregation in the south was voluntary. It's called bigotry, the state can only enforce it if it's popular to begin with.

And really? Youll drop everything? Your job, family, home? Just to open a grocery store in another state? A state in which the populace is largely bigoted and youll likely only get muslim and anti-racist customers?

A lot of it was bigotry sure, but there would be a huge opportunity to move in and capture that alienated market and make some major cash.

And I actually really would move there and open it. I am a 20 year old college student right now, going into marketing and economics. When I finish school, I may either join the Peace Corps and advise foreign businesses on economic and marketing issues, or open my own grocery store.

If such a scenario were to play out, I would definitely jump at that opportunity. Not only would I make a lot of money, id also have a customer base almost exclusively made up of anti-racists. What better people to associate with?

[cu247]

This is where you're wrong, because there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to give up all of their possessions, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to accept that private ownership is bad, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to brainwash the population into believing that placing yourself and your own ambitions and needs above those of the collective is bad.


Communism doesn't want you to give up all of your possessions. The working class will be in control of the means of production, not in control of your toothbrush.

[Die Rote Fahne]

A lot of it was bigotry sure, but there would be a huge opportunity to move in and capture that alienated market and make some major cash.

And I actually really would move there and open it. I am a 20 year old college student right now, going into marketing and economics. When I finish school, I may either join the Peace Corps and advise foreign businesses on economic and marketing issues, or open my own grocery store.

If such a scenario were to play out, I would definitely jump at that opportunity. Not only would I make a lot of money, id also have a customer base almost exclusively made up of anti-racists. What better people to associate with?

Haha, glad to know you can afford such an endeavor.

A scattered populace will flock to your store from all corners?

Utopian dreams of free market capitalists.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A lot of it was bigotry sure, but there would be a huge opportunity to move in and capture that alienated market and make some major cash.

And I actually really would move there and open it. I am a 20 year old college student right now, going into marketing and economics. When I finish school, I may either join the Peace Corps and advise foreign businesses on economic and marketing issues, or open my own grocery store.

If such a scenario were to play out, I would definitely jump at that opportunity. Not only would I make a lot of money, id also have a customer base almost exclusively made up of anti-racists. What better people to associate with?

....and what happens when the bigots burn down your store and death threats start coming your way?

[The Man]

This is where you're wrong, because there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to give up all of their possessions, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to accept that private ownership is bad, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to brainwash the population into believing that placing yourself and your own ambitions and needs above those of the collective is bad.

There will be no great epiphany when the revolution comes. People will be fed up with the system as it is now, fair enough, but they will not simply give up all they have known all their lives and start singing kumbayah while holding hands, they will still be corrupt and greedy.

This is the great fallacy of the communist master plan. It needs an immensly strong government to convince the population that what it is doing is right, and that what the people have been doing for thousands of years is wrong. You do not believe this super government stage to be true communism, and I agree with you, it is not, because as you said, true communism would have no need for government or state. But the thing is, would be communist countries never ever get past this state of big government. They never reach utopia, because the power they have over the population corrupts them utterly, and they will never reluinquish said power, and they all inevitably become authoritarian states.

And so we come true circle. At this point, you will probably hit me with a No True Scotsman argument, and I will know you can't refute me.


Just saying that, shows how you know NOTHING about Communism. Since when can there be a Communist Country? Is that actually in the Communist philosophy at all? NOPE. Plus, please don't say that we need a 'huge government to brainwash people'. Was there a government in Czarist Russia brainwashing people? or Cuba? or Vietnam? Oh wait, those were revolutions.

As for your authoritarian bullshit, please take a look at Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia, and Aragon.

[hatzel]

A scattered populace will flock to your store from all corners?

Speaking as somebody who lived in Finland for a while, and thought nothing of taking a 2½ train journey to the nearest kosher deli...yes, if you build it, they will come :)

[ZombieRothbard]

Haha, glad to know you can afford such an endeavor.

A scattered populace will flock to your store from all corners?

Utopian dreams of free market capitalists.

If there was literally an entire area that refused to serve muslims, and muslims were starving in the streets, any sane or rational person would put people before property rights and take food by force. Fortunately, there would likely be a lot of young enterprising businessmen who would flock their at the opportunity (like me). I also work in grocery, so I already have a lot of the technical skills to do it.

[ZombieRothbard]

....and what happens when the bigots burn down your store and death threats start coming your way?

Well assuming this is in the United States under a Ron Paul presidency, the police would protect my property rights just as they would protect theirs.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

This is where you're wrong, because there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to give up all of their possessions, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to force people to accept that private ownership is bad, there needs to be a dictatorship in place to brainwash the population into believing that placing yourself and your own ambitions and needs above those of the collective is bad.

There will be no great epiphany when the revolution comes. People will be fed up with the system as it is now, fair enough, but they will not simply give up all they have known all their lives and start singing kumbayah while holding hands, they will still be corrupt and greedy.

Yeah, please don't accuse us of making non-arguments before we make them if you're gonna make blanket statements like this. There is not one person on this site who isn't up for a respectful debate. Thing is... that's not what you're here for.


This is the great fallacy of the communist master plan. It needs an immensly strong government to convince the population that what it is doing is right, and that what the people have been doing for thousands of years is wrong. You do not believe this super government stage to be true communism, and I agree with you, it is not, because as you said, true communism would have no need for government or state. But the thing is, would be communist countries never ever get past this state of big government. They never reach utopia, because the power they have over the population corrupts them utterly, and they will never reluinquish said power, and they all inevitably become authoritarian states.

And so we come true circle. At this point, you will probably hit me with a No True Scotsman argument, and I will know you can't refute me.

Well, actually you can be refuted. What makes you think an immensely strong government could convince the population of these ideas? I really don't think one could. We won't force any beliefs on anyone, we'll let those people realise these things themselves. Surely you can't blame the concentration of wealth in the hands of a select few the fault of government intervention? Eventually, people are going to start to move against this, without a strong government. This is revolution.

Under any other circumstance I'd invite you to keep coming back, but it's pretty clear you're here to incite us. Leave, please.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If there was literally an entire area that refused to serve muslims, and muslims were starving in the streets, any sane or rational person would put people before property rights and take food by force. Fortunately, there would likely be a lot of young enterprising businessmen who would flock their at the opportunity (like me). I also work in grocery, so I already have a lot of the technical skills to do it.

So, if there were people staving on the streets, not as a result of bigotry, but because they had a hard life as a result of capitalism, they should be allowed to starve?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well assuming this is in the United States under a Ron Paul presidency, the police would protect my property rights just as they would protect theirs.

Ron Paul believes in states rights, so if that state condoned the destruction of your property, he would do nothing.

[ZombieRothbard]

So, if there were people staving on the streets, not as a result of bigotry, but because they had a hard life as a result of capitalism, they should be allowed to starve?

Absolutely not. If people are starving to death, with no ability to raise themselves out of poverty, they should obviously revolt.

The problem is, I don't believe capitalism would result in mass starvation. What you mean by capitalism, is crony-capitalism and corporatism. I oppose the current status-quo as much as you do. However you are calling the status-quo capitalism, and I am calling it corporatism/crony-capitalism/fascism.

We are critiquing the same thing, but calling it something different, and you are implying that I am a part of the status-quo.

[ZombieRothbard]

Ron Paul believes in states rights, so if that state condoned the destruction of your property, he would do nothing.
Which is why I am not a constitutionalist or a states rights proponent. I only support Ron Paul because he is the only candidate that even closely represents my position. I don't really expect him to win, but I think he is popularizing libertarianism and the austrian school by running for president, and hopefully these people will eventually find their way to Mises and Rothbard.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Absolutely not. If people are starving to death, with no ability to raise themselves out of poverty, they should obviously revolt.

The problem is, I don't believe capitalism would result in mass starvation. What you mean by capitalism, is crony-capitalism and corporatism. I oppose the current status-quo as much as you do. However you are calling the status-quo capitalism, and I am calling it corporatism/crony-capitalism/fascism.

We are critiquing the same thing, but calling it something different, and you are implying that I am a part of the status-quo.

How are people who cannot afford food going to revolt against the apparatus that you support? You obviously dont support property rights if you believe there are times they should be infringed upon.

That's because you are a party of the status quo. Capitalism is capitalism, whether it's social democracy or the free market. The difference? The free market will allow for longer work days and weeks, lower wages, poor workers rights, disregard for safety.

I welcome it, what better way to awaken working class consciousness than to take away everything they've fought for and making life hell for them. Revolution will be realized as the only answer and the wretched system of exploitation will end.

Do tell me, how would the free market solve poverty, homelessness and starvation?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Which is why I am not a constitutionalist or a states rights proponent. I only support Ron Paul because he is the only candidate that even closely represents my position. I don't really expect him to win, but I think he is popularizing libertarianism and the austrian school by running for president, and hopefully these people will eventually find their way to Mises and Rothbard.

Im making the point, because you said under a Ron Paul government you'd be protected.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Can whoever is banning tik tok please stop doing it unless he's actualy said something rascis, its pissing me off and spoling beginning of the annual summer revleft / mises insurections for me.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Can whoever is banning tik tok please stop doing it unless he's actualy said something rascis, its pissing me off and spoling beginning of the annual summer revleft / mises insurections for me.

No, stfu and gtfo. Nobody cares, hes banned for supporting a bigoted organization, get it through your tiny brain.

Fucking goober.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian, so I will answer this question since it is one that is commonly brought up.

First of all, I don't support segregation, which is why I would oppose the Jim Crow laws and the government enforced segregation. Property rights however is a very different animal. We can use Revleft as an example. You folks do not allow fascists and white supremacists on your website. You are basically asserting a "property right", and you are doing so on the grounds that you are a "club" or "organization" that has selective membership requirements.

If you guys ran a cafe cooperative, would you hire police officers to work part time? How about military personnel? How about white supremacists? If you turn them away, you are exercising voluntary association and property rights.

If a white trash racist group wants to exclude hiring people based on some sort of arbitrary physical characteristic like skin color, they should have the right to do so, in the same way that you guys should have a right to refuse to serve police officers or hire them.

Except these positions aren't analogus since no communist believes our right to ban fascists from our forums derives from the fact that Malte saved up some money and bought a server. Apart from Malte himself, perhaps.

[ZombieRothbard]

Can whoever is banning tik tok please stop doing it unless he's actualy said something rascis, its pissing me off and spoling beginning of the annual summer revleft / mises insurections for me.

Its funny that you guys have "summer Mises insurrections". I post at a forums called NationStates and it is dominated by social liberals. In the summers we have white nationalist insurrections. It never fails, and we cannot figure out why it only happens in the summers.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You say he is insane, why is this? I shall try to find a video of him saying that given the choice he would pardon anyone commited of possessing any type of drug. Specifically marijuana users.

He was also talking about no prison sentences for non violent offenders. Perhaps being palced under House Arrest instead.

I don't think many of you understand Libertarianism and its wide ideology. You seem to think h's the batshit insane nutter.

The man has no backers, he refuses any corporate lobbying. All the media networks despise him and FOX really went for him on the debates. Its fairly obvious the corporations dont like him nor want him. This is becuase his solutions would actually work.

These corporations require government help. Without it, they are alone in a higly competitive market.

Oh I agree with much of his criticisms, and appreciate that at least one person spouting the phrase "free-market" in politics actually means it.

Take health care, all the republicans (ALL OF THEM) claim to support a "free market" healthcare system. But of course in their free market healthcare systems it would be illegal to purchase prescriptions from Canada (or Cuba for that matter) because that would hurt their financiers. I like the fact that Paul (who's an doctor) is the only one who is actually for a free market in which the corporate interests are not what defines 'free market.'

Not that I'm ever going to support him but I still like him being there on the right to a weird extent.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No, stfu and gtfo. Nobody cares, hes banned for supporting a bigoted organization, get it through your tiny brain.

Fucking goober.

He made a poorly worded sentence, he didn't voice support for bigoted ideology.

At least, from what I saw.

[ZombieRothbard]

How are people who cannot afford food going to revolt against the apparatus that you support? You obviously dont support property rights if you believe there are times they should be infringed upon.

I support people over property. Property rights are secondary.


That's because you are a party of the status quo. Capitalism is capitalism, whether it's social democracy or the free market. The difference? The free market will allow for longer work days and weeks, lower wages, poor workers rights, disregard for safety.

Do you have any reason to believe that? If you are basing your critique of capitalism on corporatism/fascism, how can you honestly say that actual capitalism would be worse?


I welcome it, what better way to awaken working class consciousness than to take away everything they've fought for and making life hell for them. Revolution will be realized as the only answer and the wretched system of exploitation will end.

If it actually does result in the horrors you predict, I would fight with you.


Do tell me, how would the free market solve poverty, homelessness and starvation?

By *competitively* providing goods and services.

[ZombieRothbard]

Im making the point, because you said under a Ron Paul government you'd be protected.

I would be protected theoretically, if the police supported my property rights. If for whatever reason they didn't, hopefully the federal government would step in.

[ZombieRothbard]

Except these positions aren't analogus since no communist believes our right to ban fascists from our forums derives from the fact that Malte saved up some money and bought a server. Apart from Malte himself, perhaps.

Where do you believe that right derives from then?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Where do you believe that right derives from then?

That fascists are massive dicks and should go away?

[ZombieRothbard]

That fascists are massive dicks and should go away?

Somebody could say that about African Americans as well. That opinion is relative and not really a true justification at all.

If you are not willing to associate with major dicks, or share your resources with major dicks, you probably should consider adopting a propertarian ideology (hopefully anarcho-capitalism).

[Die Rote Fahne]

I support people over property. Property rights are secondary.
Weird. One less thing you share with other ancaps/libertards.



Do you have any reason to believe that? If you are basing your critique of capitalism on corporatism/fascism, how can you honestly say that actual capitalism would be worse?
We have actual capitalism. It isn't fascism. Though fascism is capitalism.

Stop misusing the term corporatism. Corporatism is the ideology of class "cooperation".

No labour laws, no social safety nets, that's how.



If it actually does result in the horrors you predict, I would fight with you.

You have doubt in your system, and in no way would I fight side by side with a capitalist unless you realize that socialism is what is necessary.




By *competitively* providing goods and services.
That makes no sense.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Somebody could say that about African Americans as well. That opinion is relative and not really a true justification at all.


Yeah, except they'd be wrong in that case, wouldn't they ;)

Honestly, there can be a million justifications for not allowing fascists to speak on here, to me, it just doesn't seem appropiate considering that leftists should have the opporuntity to speak without being disturbed by people who they don't want to be disturbed by. I don't think you need to invoke the right to property as a general case to support this!

[ZombieRothbard]

Weird. One less thing you share with other ancaps/libertards.

Well the kind you guys tend to get on these forums (after reading through some other topics where libertarians have visited here) tend to be really ignorant social darwinists that don't understand economics.


We have actual capitalism. It isn't fascism. Though fascism is capitalism.

I would disagree. I am not sure how actual capitalism would involve left-wing Keynesian economic policies.


No labour laws, no social safety nets, that's how.

In a truly free market you wouldn't need those things, because employers would voluntarily provide them to attract employees. Businesses would compete for employees.


You have doubt in your system, and in no way would I fight side by side with a capitalist unless you realize that socialism is what is necessary.
Anybody that doesn't have at least a small degree of doubt in their system is a blind ideologue.


That makes no sense.

Which is probably why you are a socialist <3 :p

[ZombieRothbard]

Yeah, except they'd be wrong in that case, wouldn't they ;)

Honestly, there can be a million justifications for not allowing fascists to speak on here, to me, it just doesn't seem appropiate considering that leftists should have the opporuntity to speak without being disturbed by people who they don't want to be disturbed by. I don't think you need to invoke the right to property as a general case to support this!

They would obviously be wrong, however that is just my opinion. Who is the arbiter of who is right or wrong when it comes to who is a dick?

And the fact that it doesn't seem "appropriate" isn't an argument either. Maybe somebody doesn't feel like it is appropriate that Mexicans aren't interned in concentration camps. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.

If you want to exclude douchebags from your storefront and your daily activities, then you should support property rights.

[L.A.P.]

Let me ask you this: would you guys allow fascists to work at your cafe? If company that you are renting this domain from has white nationalist connections, would you still pay for it?

If we're going to talk about our hypothetical ideal societies then can we at least get straight that under a communist society there wouldn't be a company to rent a domain from in the first place.

[LegendZ]

I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian, so I will answer this question since it is one that is commonly brought up.

First of all, I don't support segregation, which is why I would oppose the Jim Crow laws and the government enforced segregation. Property rights however is a very different animal. We can use Revleft as an example. You folks do not allow fascists and white supremacists on your website. You are basically asserting a "property right", and you are doing so on the grounds that you are a "club" or "organization" that has selective membership requirements.

If you guys ran a cafe cooperative, would you hire police officers to work part time? How about military personnel? How about white supremacists? If you turn them away, you are exercising voluntary association and property rights.

If a white trash racist group wants to exclude hiring people based on some sort of arbitrary physical characteristic like skin color, they should have the right to do so, in the same way that you guys should have a right to refuse to serve police officers or hire them.

Realistically though, it would be professional suicide to do so. Putting a whites only sign up would not only scare away your suppliers, but also your customers. That would be bad PR that would likely put you out of business. But if a bunch of white trash want to go set up a tavern so they can watch NASCAR, have Milwakees Beast on tap, and exclude people from their storefront, they should be able to do it. Just as you guys should have the right to go set up your vegan cafe, and exclude fascist cops and white supremacists from it.
1. You can't change skin color.
2. Black, white, mexican, asians ect can ALL be police Military or w\e else. We aren't excluding them because of how they were born or what color/culture they are. We are excluding them because of their jobs.
3. We don't exclude Fascists or White supremacists because they are white. We do so because they're fascists and White supremacists. You can't change your skin color or where you are born.
4. If you are telling black people they can't eat in your shop because they're black. That's racist and it is a form of segregation. You are saying that because they are black and ONLY because they are black that they cant eat there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well the kind you guys tend to get on these forums (after reading through some other topics where libertarians have visited here) tend to be really ignorant social darwinists that don't understand economics.

It's actually the majority.




I would disagree. I am not sure how actual capitalism would involve left-wing Keynesian economic policies.

Capitalism, as defined by every dictionary on earth. Means of production are privately owned.


In a truly free market you wouldn't need those things, because employers would voluntarily provide them to attract employees. Businesses would compete for employees.

And what's to stop companies from cooperating to make more money for themselves?

What about rural areas where this competition can't physically exist?



Anybody that doesn't have at least a small degree of doubt in their system is a blind ideologue.

It's okay to question. I agree. But you're doubt is much more along the lines of "I'm a utopian, but I realize it".




Which is probably why you are a socialist <3 :p
I meant logistically, makes no sense. Competition won't end poverty, end homelessness. Care to explain exactly how?

[Die Rote Fahne]

They would obviously be wrong, however that is just my opinion. Who is the arbiter of who is right or wrong when it comes to who is a dick?

And the fact that it doesn't seem "appropriate" isn't an argument either. Maybe somebody doesn't feel like it is appropriate that Mexicans aren't interned in concentration camps. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.

If you want to exclude douchebags from your storefront and your daily activities, then you should support property rights.

It's the whole idea of: who wants to infringe on my personal rights?

Capitalists do this via wage slavery.

[ZombieRothbard]

And what's to stop companies from cooperating to make more money for themselves?

Cartelization breaks up, because there is incentive for one of the companies to break rank and undercut their competitors to capture the entire market share.


What about rural areas where this competition can't physically exist?

Why can't competition exist in rural areas? Are they not in competition when they sell their goods to market?


It's okay to question. I agree. But you're doubt is much more along the lines of "I'm a utopian, but I realize it".

Not really. I don't know how you got that impression.


I meant logistically, makes no sense. Competition won't end poverty, end homelessness. Care to explain exactly how?

Competition drives prices down and wages up. The reason why it doesn't happen in our economy is because businesses are able to grow to insane proportions via intellectual property monopolies, incorporation laws, subsidies and tax loopholes. "Too big to fail" can't happen in a free market. In a free market businesses die, and new ones take their place. In our economy, when a super corporation makes a mistake, they get bailed out and propped up. If they were allowed to fail, small businesses would have to fill the void.

In a market that is made up of small business, competition would be increased. Competition for employees would promote an increase in wages and better working conditions. It doesn't happen now because corporations enjoy the benefits of state privilege, and are free to grow to gigantic proportions.

[ZombieRothbard]

It's the whole idea of: who wants to infringe on my personal rights?

Capitalists do this via wage slavery.

Not sure where you get wage slavery from. If you would prefer to subsist and be your own boss, that can be done. But most people prefer to reap the benefits of being employed by a capitalist who can provide you with more in return for your labor than you would get from subsisting.

[cu247]

Most people can't just become their own boss like that, you need a lot of capital to start a business and most people just can't so they are still trapped in wage slavery

[RGacky3]

Do you have any reason to believe that? If you are basing your critique of capitalism on corporatism/fascism, how can you honestly say that actual capitalism would be worse?


We can make that claim based on what happens when democratic controls are taken away, also based on the nature of Capitalism, which is confirmed empirically.


By *competitively* providing goods and services.

Except who is competing over homeless people? They don't have money, those homeless people need to just take anything they can get.

Your also assuming competition, what if both parties will be better off not competing, which is what happens all the time.


In a truly free market you wouldn't need those things, because employers would voluntarily provide them to attract employees. Businesses would compete for employees.


No they would'nt, because we have massiave unemployment, what they would more likely do is make people work more for less, and because there are many unemployed people no one will say anything. In a truely free market (without strong unions), there is no way that would happen.


Cartelization breaks up, because there is incentive for one of the companies to break rank and undercut their competitors to capture the entire market share.


Many times there is no incentive for that, because they know a price war will destroy both companies, so its better to keep the profits stable.


Competition drives prices down and wages up. The reason why it doesn't happen in our economy is because businesses are able to grow to insane proportions via intellectual property monopolies, incorporation laws, subsidies and tax loopholes. "Too big to fail" can't happen in a free market. In a free market businesses die, and new ones take their place. In our economy, when a super corporation makes a mistake, they get bailed out and propped up. If they were allowed to fail, small businesses would have to fill the void.

In a market that is made up of small business, competition would be increased. Competition for employees would promote an increase in wages and better working conditions. It doesn't happen now because corporations enjoy the benefits of state privilege, and are free to grow to gigantic proportions.

No it drives wages down, sometimes prices down, sometimes not,

Remember your competing also for investment, and to keep your stocks high, which means you need constant profit, which gives you an incentive to cut cost and so on.

BTW state privilege IS THE NATURAL OUTCOME of a free market, when a company starts winning competition of coarse they will use outside power to keep their competition high, ever hear of De Beers btw?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

They would obviously be wrong, however that is just my opinion. Who is the arbiter of who is right or wrong when it comes to who is a dick?

And the fact that it doesn't seem "appropriate" isn't an argument either. Maybe somebody doesn't feel like it is appropriate that Mexicans aren't interned in concentration camps. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.

If you want to exclude douchebags from your storefront and your daily activities, then you should support property rights.

Yes, your "opinion" would surely be correct in that case? Why is my opinion on these matters wrong and yours correct, that we should believe in capitalist property rights? Maybe you can provide an argument, but so far all you have done is stated that my ethical views are "opinions" when I believe yours are as well. So far you haven't told me why what seems like your own opinion is something I should find morally superior to my own.

I don' get what your on about with the example of Mexicans in concentration camps. Don't you imagine that if someone wanted to do that they would have totally different ethical sentiments and reasoning behind it? I don't see why finding one set of ethics appropriate means that there are no grounds for excluding others. You seem to think that before you hold an ethical view you need to invent some kind of system or limits or else have no different grounds for your position than some guy who wants to put Mexicans in a concentration camp? but that seems totally arbitrary, why does inventing a certain system of property rights mean that you don't feel this (in my view false) analogy applies.

[ZombieRothbard]

We can make that claim based on what happens when democratic controls are taken away, also based on the nature of Capitalism, which is confirmed empirically.



Except who is competing over homeless people? They don't have money, those homeless people need to just take anything they can get.

Your also assuming competition, what if both parties will be better off not competing, which is what happens all the time.



No they would'nt, because we have massiave unemployment, what they would more likely do is make people work more for less, and because there are many unemployed people no one will say anything. In a truely free market (without strong unions), there is no way that would happen.



Many times there is no incentive for that, because they know a price war will destroy both companies, so its better to keep the profits stable.



No it drives wages down, sometimes prices down, sometimes not,

Remember your competing also for investment, and to keep your stocks high, which means you need constant profit, which gives you an incentive to cut cost and so on.

BTW state privilege IS THE NATURAL OUTCOME of a free market, when a company starts winning competition of coarse they will use outside power to keep their competition high, ever hear of De Beers btw?


I will answer with a quote from Roderick Long:


One especially useful service that the state can render the corporate elite is cartel enforcement. Price-fixing agreements are unstable on a free market, since while all parties to the agreement have a collective interest in seeing the agreement generally hold, each has an individual interest in breaking the agreement by underselling the other parties in order to win away their customers; and even if the cartel manages to maintain discipline over its own membership, the oligopolistic prices tend to attract new competitors into the market. Hence the advantage to business of state-enforced cartelisation. Often this is done directly, but there are indirect ways too, such as imposing uniform quality standards that relieve firms from having to compete in quality. (And when the quality standards are high, lower-quality but cheaper competitors are priced out of the market.)
The ability of colossal firms to exploit economies of scale is also limited in a free market, since beyond a certain point the benefits of size (e.g., reduced transaction costs) get outweighed by diseconomies of scale (e.g., calculational chaos stemming from absence of price feedback)—unless the state enables them to socialise these costs by immunising them from competition – e.g., by imposing fees, licensure requirements, capitalisation requirements, and other regulatory burdens that disproportionately impact newer, poorer entrants as opposed to richer, more established firms.[4]
Nor does the list end there. Tax breaks to favored corporations represent yet another non-obvious form of government intervention. There is of course nothing anti-market about tax breaks per se; quite the contrary. But when a firm is exempted from taxes to which its competitors are subject, it becomes the beneficiary of state coercion directed against others, and to that extent owes its success to government intervention rather than market forces.
Intellectual property laws also function to bolster the power of big business. Even those who accept the intellectual property as a legitimate form of private property[5] can agree that the ever-expanding temporal horizon of copyright protection, along with disproportionately steep fines for violations (measures for which publishers, recording firms, software companies, and film studios have lobbied so effectively), are excessive from an incentival point of view, stand in tension with the express intent of the Constitution’s patents-and-copyrights clause, and have more to do with maximizing corporate profits than with securing a fair return to the original creators.
Government favoritism also underwrites environmental irresponsibility on the part of big business. Polluters often enjoy protection against lawsuits, for example, despite the pollution’s status as a violation of private property rights.[6] When timber companies engage in logging on public lands, the access roads are generally tax-funded, thus reducing the cost of logging below its market rate; moreover, since the loggers do not own the forests they have little incentive to log sustainably.[7]
In addition, inflationary monetary policies on the part of central banks also tend to benefit those businesses that receive the inflated money first in the form of loans and investments, when they are still facing the old, lower prices, while those to whom the new money trickles down later, only after they have already begun facing higher prices, systematically lose out.
And of course corporations have been frequent beneficiaries of U.S. military interventions abroad, from the United Fruit Company in 1950s Guatemala to Halliburton in Iraq today.

[RGacky3]

each has an individual interest in breaking the agreement by underselling the other parties in order to win away their customers; and even if the cartel manages to maintain discipline over its own membership, the oligopolistic prices tend to attract new competitors into the market. Hence the advantage to business of state-enforced cartelisation. Often this is done directly, but there are indirect ways too, such as imposing uniform quality standards that relieve firms from having to compete in quality. (And when the quality standards are high, lower-quality but cheaper competitors are priced out of the market.)


Not true, your taking out barriers to entry of industries which can and generally are controlled by cartels in existanse, also the threat of undercutting new comers.

Also it is not in their interest to undersell if they realize that a price war will hurt profits and they are better of price setting.

This is'nt theory, it happens ALL THE TIME.


The ability of colossal firms to exploit economies of scale is also limited in a free market, since beyond a certain point the benefits of size (e.g., reduced transaction costs) get outweighed by diseconomies of scale (e.g., calculational chaos stemming from absence of price feedback)—unless the state enables them to socialise these costs by immunising them from competition – e.g., by imposing fees, licensure requirements, capitalisation requirements, and other regulatory burdens that disproportionately impact newer, poorer entrants as opposed to richer, more established firms.[4]


THere have NEVER BEEN ANY empirical proof that any time diseconomies of scale outweigh economies of scale, nowerdays you can fanchise, decentralize management and so on to stop that stuff.

Also these regulatory burdens are miniscule in effect when you compare them to actual market controls of larger corporations.


Nor does the list end there. Tax breaks to favored corporations represent yet another non-obvious form of government intervention. There is of course nothing anti-market about tax breaks per se; quite the contrary. But when a firm is exempted from taxes to which its competitors are subject, it becomes the beneficiary of state coercion directed against others, and to that extent owes its success to government intervention rather than market forces.
Intellectual property laws also function to bolster the power of big business. Even those who accept the intellectual property as a legitimate form of private property[5] can agree that the ever-expanding temporal horizon of copyright protection, along with disproportionately steep fines for violations (measures for which publishers, recording firms, software companies, and film studios have lobbied so effectively), are excessive from an incentival point of view, stand in tension with the express intent of the Constitution’s patents-and-copyrights clause, and have more to do with maximizing corporate profits than with securing a fair return to the original creators.
Government favoritism also underwrites environmental irresponsibility on the part of big business. Polluters often enjoy protection against lawsuits, for example, despite the pollution’s status as a violation of private property rights.[6] When timber companies engage in logging on public lands, the access roads are generally tax-funded, thus reducing the cost of logging below its market rate; moreover, since the loggers do not own the forests they have little incentive to log sustainably.[7]
In addition, inflationary monetary policies on the part of central banks also tend to benefit those businesses that receive the inflated money first in the form of loans and investments, when they are still facing the old, lower prices, while those to whom the new money trickles down later, only after they have already begun facing higher prices, systematically lose out.
And of course corporations have been frequent beneficiaries of U.S. military interventions abroad, from the United Fruit Company in 1950s Guatemala to Halliburton in Iraq today.

All of what your talking about is right wing governments, just because some douch bag governments such as the Reagen and Thatcher administrations supported buisiness, does not mean that government as a whole supports big buisiness, or that those benefits are the sole reason for their size.

ALSO your skipping a HUGE part of my argument, I'll repeat it.


BTW state privilege IS THE NATURAL OUTCOME of a free market, when a company starts winning competition of coarse they will use outside power to keep their competition high.

EVEN IF a state institution did'nt exist, there is no way corporations would not create institutions that protect and give privilege to their power, the only difference is those institutions would not be subject to democratic control.

the very nature of capitalism dictates that capitalists will use whatever means to increase their market share, if this means using the state (as is the natural otcome of capitalism) or using some non governmental organizations (as would be the case in some impossible anarcho-capitalist society), they will do it. This is why a Free Market can and will never exist.

[Dean]

A lot of it was bigotry sure, but there would be a huge opportunity to move in and capture that alienated market and make some major cash.

And I actually really would move there and open it. I am a 20 year old college student right now, going into marketing and economics. When I finish school, I may either join the Peace Corps and advise foreign businesses on economic and marketing issues, or open my own grocery store.

If such a scenario were to play out, I would definitely jump at that opportunity. Not only would I make a lot of money, id also have a customer base almost exclusively made up of anti-racists. What better people to associate with?

This is an idealist fantasy. Any good economist knows not to restrict your potential customer base, since that restricts demand. Profits are made in the margin (especially for independent grocery stores) so even if you are only omitting 5% of the local population with whatever "anti-racist" targeted promotion you choose, this could easily mean 50% of available profit or more lost.

The reason is simple: constant costs (spoilt food, refrigeration, operation, capital, rent) are very high for grocery stores, and they can only really be offset by a consistently high volume of sales.

As I understand it, 5% profit margin is considered pretty good for retail. I know the (retail) business I work at now often works at such rates. As I said, capitalist profit is made in the margins which means that every little move is critical. This is largely why markets ossify, and has a lot to do with the risky moves banks made to appear more profitable and accrue more investment than they could safely manage (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2011/03/credit-crisis-as-valorization-problem.html).

Indeed - if you want a successful business, you need to step in line with economic convention. The only exception to this rule tends to be in very specific, niche markets, and I don't see how you could expect to find a population with truly less than 5% of racists in it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Not sure where you get wage slavery from. If you would prefer to subsist and be your own boss, that can be done. But most people prefer to reap the benefits of being employed by a capitalist who can provide you with more in return for your labor than you would get from subsisting.

You're quite delusional. It's actually mind boggling that anarcho-capitalists exist.

Become your own boss...how do you propose I do that? Where am I getting the capital? How am I going to magically become my own boss and make money?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Somebody could say that about African Americans as well. That opinion is relative and not really a true justification at all.

If you are not willing to associate with major dicks, or share your resources with major dicks, you probably should consider adopting a propertarian ideology (hopefully anarcho-capitalism).

Fascists are equal to african americans...ohh dear.

The fascist ideology makes them dicks, not their skin colour.

[Zapatas Guns]

Absolutely not. If people are starving to death, with no ability to raise themselves out of poverty, they should obviously revolt.

The problem is, I don't believe capitalism would result in mass starvation. What you mean by capitalism, is crony-capitalism and corporatism. I oppose the current status-quo as much as you do. However you are calling the status-quo capitalism, and I am calling it corporatism/crony-capitalism/fascism.

We are critiquing the same thing, but calling it something different, and you are implying that I am a part of the status-quo.

You may call it whatever you like. You may believe in this free market utopian fantasy. You fail to connect dot to dot and see that the "free market" system itself, that has stratified society has given those with more money the power to turn things into "corporatism" and "crony capitalism." When the elites get more, when the elites get money and power they go about making sure no one else can rise either.

What you advocate is exactly when the wealthy and powerful want. Economic "freedom" so they can go about and drive wages down, get rid of benefits, and have people to work like capitalist slaves their whole lives for nothing.

Before you start, spare me the wealthy make jobs and spur the economy bull shit. That is 100% false.

They put this trash ideology out there to sucker people into believing that you, me, and everyone else can get rich and make it just like them. Truth is the game is rigged and you will lose.

[Zapatas Guns]

In a truly free market you wouldn't need those things, because employers would voluntarily provide them to attract employees. Businesses would compete for employees.




ROFL Yeah fucking right!

All you need to do is look at history to prove this idea wrong.

[hatzel]

You fail to connect dot to dot and see that the "free market" system itself, that has stratified society has given those with more money the power to turn things into "corporatism" and "crony capitalism."


All you need to do is look at history to prove this idea wrong.

You do realise that the free market capitalism ancaps advocate has never existed, right? So it couldn't have caused anything, nor will merely looking to history for non-existent past instances prove the idea false...

[Zapatas Guns]

You do realise that the free market capitalism ancaps advocate has never existed, right? So it couldn't have caused anything, nor will merely looking to history for non-existent past instances prove the idea false...


Technically yes. However, looking back into history there have been times that it was close to what they advocate.

[Bronco]

I dont think we've had anything near to a real freed market, people seem to think it'd just be the current Capitalist system without so much regulations which isnt true at all

[hatzel]

Technically yes. However, looking back into history there have been times that it was close to what they advocate.

When exactly are you thinking of?

[PhoenixAsh]

so...I have this question:

How angry are you that the birtish LP withdrew and asked the police to investigate the treasurer acting out your core ideology?

[ZombieRothbard]

Fascists are equal to african americans...ohh dear.

The fascist ideology makes them dicks, not their skin colour.

I do not intend to debate the validity of ignorant white supremacist positions. I am merely saying that if you do not want to voluntarily associate with white supremacists, it may be wise to adopt a propertarian ideology that would not require you to share resources and associate with such people.

[ZombieRothbard]

This is an idealist fantasy. Any good economist knows not to restrict your potential customer base, since that restricts demand. Profits are made in the margin (especially for independent grocery stores) so even if you are only omitting 5% of the local population with whatever "anti-racist" targeted promotion you choose, this could easily mean 50% of available profit or more lost.

The reason is simple: constant costs (spoilt food, refrigeration, operation, capital, rent) are very high for grocery stores, and they can only really be offset by a consistently high volume of sales.

As I understand it, 5% profit margin is considered pretty good for retail. I know the (retail) business I work at now often works at such rates. As I said, capitalist profit is made in the margins which means that every little move is critical. This is largely why markets ossify, and has a lot to do with the risky moves banks made to appear more profitable and accrue more investment than they could safely manage (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2011/03/credit-crisis-as-valorization-problem.html).

Indeed - if you want a successful business, you need to step in line with economic convention. The only exception to this rule tends to be in very specific, niche markets, and I don't see how you could expect to find a population with truly less than 5% of racists in it.

I agree with this post, which is why it is curious. It supports the view that capitalism and free and voluntary trade actually nullifies the effects of racism and bigotry.

[ZombieRothbard]

You may call it whatever you like. You may believe in this free market utopian fantasy. You fail to connect dot to dot and see that the "free market" system itself, that has stratified society has given those with more money the power to turn things into "corporatism" and "crony capitalism." When the elites get more, when the elites get money and power they go about making sure no one else can rise either.

What you advocate is exactly when the wealthy and powerful want. Economic "freedom" so they can go about and drive wages down, get rid of benefits, and have people to work like capitalist slaves their whole lives for nothing.

I often wonder why more large corporations don't support Ron Paul's candidacy if that was the case. Why wouldn't these giant corporations start spewing out money to support Ron Paul's message to get him elected if free markets actually lead to what you say they do?

The reason why, is because the republicans and democrats are corporate chills. They know by supporting their campaigns, they will have friends in the whitehouse that will keep giving them privelege.


Before you start, spare me the wealthy make jobs and spur the economy bull shit. That is 100% false.

:huh:


They put this trash ideology out there to sucker people into believing that you, me, and everyone else can get rich and make it just like them. Truth is the game is rigged and you will lose.

I agree the game is rigged now. It doesn't necessarily have to be though...

[#FF0000]

I do not intend to debate the validity of ignorant white supremacist positions. I am merely saying that if you do not want to voluntarily associate with white supremacists, it may be wise to adopt a propertarian ideology that would not require you to share resources and associate with such people.

Being a communist doesn't mean you have to let people hang out at your house and do what they want. Same principle here.

[ZombieRothbard]

Not true, your taking out barriers to entry of industries which can and generally are controlled by cartels in existanse, also the threat of undercutting new comers.

Predatory pricing has been debunked, even neoclassicals don't believe that it can work. Predatory pricing floods the market with goods, and obviously incurs losses. It is not a sustainable strategy, unless you mean "undercut" by simply lowering their prices slightly to be more competitive. I wouldn't have any problem with THAT, because the cartelization isn't really a negative when they have low prices is it?


Also it is not in their interest to undersell if they realize that a price war will hurt profits and they are better of price setting.

Until one breaks rank and makes bank.


This is'nt theory, it happens ALL THE TIME.

I don't know that it does, but even if it did, it happens in our over-regulated economy. So it isn't really a critique of capitalism, rather it is a critique of crony-capitalism.


THere have NEVER BEEN ANY empirical proof that any time diseconomies of scale outweigh economies of scale, nowerdays you can fanchise, decentralize management and so on to stop that stuff.

If you view governments as corporations like I do, I would cite the soviet union as one of the better examples of diseconomies of scale. Integrating everything is impossible, you need many sovereign experts to run their respective businesses to provide goods and services to people. One company cannot do it effectively.


Also these regulatory burdens are miniscule in effect when you compare them to actual market controls of larger corporations.

What kind of market controls? You mean privelege?


All of what your talking about is right wing governments, just because some douch bag governments such as the Reagen and Thatcher administrations supported buisiness, does not mean that government as a whole supports big buisiness, or that those benefits are the sole reason for their size.

Governments are the reason big business exists.


ALSO your skipping a HUGE part of my argument, I'll repeat it.



EVEN IF a state institution did'nt exist, there is no way corporations would not create institutions that protect and give privilege to their power, the only difference is those institutions would not be subject to democratic control.

the very nature of capitalism dictates that capitalists will use whatever means to increase their market share, if this means using the state (as is the natural otcome of capitalism) or using some non governmental organizations (as would be the case in some impossible anarcho-capitalist society), they will do it. This is why a Free Market can and will never exist.

Businesses are slaves of the consumer. Any business that aggressors against the consumer won't be all that successful. If WAL-MART started hiring armed mercenaries to shoot people trying to return damaged goods, I am pretty sure nobody would shop there.

[ZombieRothbard]

Being a communist doesn't mean you have to let people hang out at your house and do what they want. Same principle here.

Isn't that asserting property rights? Are you going to pull a gun on them and force them off your property? What if you ask them and they don't leave? What right do you have in a non-propertarian society to dictate where people can and cannot stand?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Isn't that asserting property rights? Are you going to pull a gun on them and force them off your property? What if you ask them and they don't leave? What right do you have in a non-propertarian society to dictate where people can and cannot stand?

Marxism defines private property as capital.

[#FF0000]

Marxism defines private property as capital.

Kind of. Sort of. "Capital" is a lot more than what Marxism calls Property. Thug Lessons caught me making this mistake too.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Kind of. Sort of. "Capital" is a lot more than what Marxism calls Property. Thug Lessons caught me making this mistake too.
Truth.

Well, its not personal property, guess that was my main point

[#FF0000]

"Private Property" = Factories, farms, and workshops.

People can own their CDs and apartments and houses and whatever.

[ZombieRothbard]

"Private Property" = Factories, farms, and workshops.

People can own their CDs and apartments and houses and whatever.

Do people own the ground below their house as well?

[Die Rote Fahne]

"Private Property" = Factories, farms, and workshops.

People can own their CDs and apartments and houses and whatever.

Yes, means of production.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Do people own the ground below their house as well?

Do people get the ground beneath their sneakers?

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm in the camp that says landed property is outright theft. Other forms of property can be generally illegitimate. But landed property is outright thievery.

[DinodudeEpic]

Well theoretically, you can have a free market where the workers own the means of production via worker cooperatives that work like businesses. Would that satisfy your will for a free market? There is no state intervention and the workers can do what they will with their businesses.

[RGacky3]

Do people own the ground below their house as well?

Do they need to own that ground?


Predatory pricing has been debunked, even neoclassicals don't believe that it can work. Predatory pricing floods the market with goods, and obviously incurs losses. It is not a sustainable strategy, unless you mean "undercut" by simply lowering their prices slightly to be more competitive. I wouldn't have any problem with THAT, because the cartelization isn't really a negative when they have low prices is it?


Its not sustainable, but it does'nt need to be, you just need to do it enough to take out whoever you want. Once they are out you can raise prices again, or cut quality, and by the the barrier to entry is large enough to discourage competition and you have the ability to take out that competition if it comes up.

So Cartelization is negative, even if prices are low you have hurt the consumer base by pushing down wages.


Until one breaks rank and makes bank.


You mean brakes bank due to prices wars, did you miss that part?


I don't know that it does, but even if it did, it happens in our over-regulated economy. So it isn't really a critique of capitalism, rather it is a critique of crony-capitalism.


IT does, and it happens more in less regulated economies, and unless you can actually make the connection TO regulation (which you can't), its the market.

Also as always, crony capitalism is the natural outcome of capitalism.


If you view governments as corporations like I do, I would cite the soviet union as one of the better examples of diseconomies of scale. Integrating everything is impossible, you need many sovereign experts to run their respective businesses to provide goods and services to people. One company cannot do it effectively.


Governments are not corporations, some work more like corporations, some not at all, thats a problem with libertarians they view all governments as basically the same.

Also the USSR had many problems, and they collapsed for many reasons, but if thats your example about why diseconomy of scale beats economies of scale your fooling youself.

The USSR was not a for-profit market based company.


What kind of market controls? You mean privelege?


Surplus Capital is a form of market control, the more money you have the more say you have on the market, the more you can control it to benefit you.


What kind of market controls? You mean privelege?


THeres no way to prove that, and if that were true it would be more government regulation, less big buisiness, is that the case?


Businesses are slaves of the consumer. Any business that aggressors against the consumer won't be all that successful. If WAL-MART started hiring armed mercenaries to shoot people trying to return damaged goods, I am pretty sure nobody would shop there.

I'm pretty sure people wold shop there if they did'nt have anywhere else to shop. Also shooting people returning products is not what I mean, I mean shooting strikers, or people trying to join unions AND THAT IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL.

Also "buisinesses are slaves of the consumer" is way way way oversimplistic and a dumb way to look at economics.

[Revolution starts with U]

I like to put it like this: business seeks to serve the consumer demands of the monied interests.
It frames it in their terms. And if one is not fooling themselves, they will immediately see that it is first true, and second, that it shatters any attempt to claim the market provides for need in any way other than pure coincidence.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Isn't that asserting property rights? Are you going to pull a gun on them and force them off your property? What if you ask them and they don't leave? What right do you have in a non-propertarian society to dictate where people can and cannot stand?

Again, no you obviously don't.

It'd be easy to say "yeah we believe in certain types of property and not others" and have done with this ridiculas issue but there are obviously plenty of moral precepts you can operate on without invoking property rights at all.

Generally I think us humans, as opposed to the overweight IT studens that make up the libertarian camp, can usually find morality in the fact that other people shoulnd't hurt each other, or whatever. The focal point of this morality, is the effects these things have on people, and then after that deciding who should have control of what, rather than assessing the validity of each person's claim to a particular property at the time. I think this serves as a functional example and I'd be frustrated if you attempted to say this was illegitilate in some manner considering you have previously stated all morals are arbitary, or at least, cannot be justified by reason, only explained by it in some manner. The latter I agree with, and so i'd appeal to your own emotional sense where I think it should be agreeable to you that we ultimately should place our morality on the effects things have on each other at the time, and then calculate property from that, which i think is opposite to some degree from the libertarian system of calculating property rights based on various moral notions and ignoring the effects they have on people as long as they satisfy a prearranged criteria.

[cogar66]

This website is a possession, not property. dbzer0 . com/blog/private-property-vs-possession
Yep.

[nickdlc]

Here's my question.

Are you oblivious to the fact that the majority of rich nations including the united states used heavy state regulation to protect their infant industries from competition until they were developed enough to compete globally?

Why do you believe that poor countries should use free market principles to develop their countries when rich countries never did this?

[Kiev Communard]

Do people own the ground below their house as well?

They possess it as long as they live in that house and it is necessary for their social existence.

[not a leftist]

Tik-Tok is a faggot that posts on 4chon /new/. I post there but I don't use a trip like an aspie. I am also a libertarian (there is no left-right dichotomy, that's just a taste and philosophy difference) but tik-tok is not representative of libertarians or libertarian theory. I am a masters in economics, so if you have an questions for adults, please ask me instead. I won't necessarily be nice about it though.



Here's my question.

Are you oblivious to the fact that the majority of rich nations including the united states used heavy state regulation to protect their infant industries from competition until they were developed enough to compete globally?

You're conflating cause and context. The "heavy state regulation" you claim existed (source?) if anything would have hindered the growth of industries. Monopolies are inefficient except in an exceptionally small number of markets. If this is true at all, it's just proof that A) these nations were in exceptional economic situations outside of economic policy and B) we would be far more economically and technologically advanced if we had a freer market early on.

Why do you believe that poor countries should use free market principles to develop their countries when rich countries never did this?
Because mutually beneficial voluntary transaction leads to what people want to happen, and those people to get what they want by virtue of transaction being free. If you disagree with this, try to disprove it. Let me also ask you this: how is wealth created? specifically.

[#FF0000]

we would be far more economically and technologically advanced if we had a freer market early on.

lol

[Sasha]

Tik-Tok is a faggot

have an infraction for prejudiced language, also restricted...

[Ele'ill]

Nevermind. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

have an infraction for prejudiced language, also restricted... Nothing spoils my afternoon as an admin quite like the message that comes up when you try to issue an infraction for a post someone beat you to. I was hoping a global mod did it so I could the restriction but nooo some smartarse had to beat me to it.

/banter.

[RGacky3]

Not a leftist, woud you be so kind as to address my issues, considering tictoc left?

[Napoleon Winston]

From what I've read so far, it seems like some of the posters in this thread have some misconceptions about libertarianism.

First of all, its been shown that forcing your employees to work long hours without pay is a bad business model, and that people work better without stress. Its likely that the best corporations will be those that treat their workers with respect ([http:[slash][slash]computer[dot]howstuffworks[dot]com[slash]googleplex3[dot]htm)

Not only that, but by treating their workers well, they provide an incentive for overqualified people to work for them, thus helping improve their product.

One might even say that many restrictions on businesses are in place to oppress the poor, for example, when I was travailing in South America a few months back I noticed a massive amount of restaurants. Because of its low start up cost it was a great way for the lower class to make money, however because of regulations and health codes, it can take quite a bit of time and money for restaurants to start up in North America, allowing for large companies to take over.

To expand on that, Union Crackdowns could have never happened under a true libertarian society. Indeed, libertarianism serves the working class quite nicely.

Just some food for thought.

[Imposter Marxist]

From what I've read so far, it seems like some of the posters in this thread have some misconceptions about libertarianism.

First of all, its been shown that forcing your employees to work long hours without pay is a bad business model, and that people work better without stress. Its likely that the best corporations will be those that treat their workers with respect ([http:[slash][slash]computer[dot]howstuffworks[dot]com[slash]googleplex3[dot]htm)

Not only that, but by treating their workers well, they provide an incentive for overqualified people to work for them, thus helping improve their product.

One might even say that many restrictions on businesses are in place to oppress the poor, for example, when I was travailing in South America a few months back I noticed a massive amount of restaurants. Because of its low start up cost it was a great way for the lower class to make money, however because of regulations and health codes, it can take quite a bit of time and money for restaurants to start up in North America, allowing for large companies to take over.

To expand on that, Union Crackdowns could have never happened under a true libertarian society. Indeed, libertarianism serves the working class quite nicely.

Just some food for thought.


Without even touching your argument, I think you're missing the point.

[Queercommie Girl]

From what I've read so far, it seems like some of the posters in this thread have some misconceptions about libertarianism.

First of all, its been shown that forcing your employees to work long hours without pay is a bad business model, and that people work better without stress. Its likely that the best corporations will be those that treat their workers with respect ([http:[slash][slash]computer[dot]howstuffworks[dot]com[slash]googleplex3[dot]htm)

Not only that, but by treating their workers well, they provide an incentive for overqualified people to work for them, thus helping improve their product.

One might even say that many restrictions on businesses are in place to oppress the poor, for example, when I was travailing in South America a few months back I noticed a massive amount of restaurants. Because of its low start up cost it was a great way for the lower class to make money, however because of regulations and health codes, it can take quite a bit of time and money for restaurants to start up in North America, allowing for large companies to take over.

To expand on that, Union Crackdowns could have never happened under a true libertarian society. Indeed, libertarianism serves the working class quite nicely.

Just some food for thought.

Blah...Blah...Blah...

No-one gives a shit what you are saying.

[RGacky3]

First of all, its been shown that forcing your employees to work long hours without pay is a bad business model, and that people work better without stress. Its likely that the best corporations will be those that treat their workers with respect ([http:[slash][slash]computer[dot]howstuffworks[dot]com[slash]googleplex3[dot]htm)

Not only that, but by treating their workers well, they provide an incentive for overqualified people to work for them, thus helping improve their product.


Actually no its not, especially with relatively high unemployment, because your saving money, if it was such a bad buisiness model, why do the successfull capitalists do it so much? They are competing for investment and sales, while workers are competing for jobs, meaning capitalists need to cut costs as much as possible and because workers are competing they don't need to worry about loosing productivity.


One might even say that many restrictions on businesses are in place to oppress the poor, for example, when I was travailing in South America a few months back I noticed a massive amount of restaurants. Because of its low start up cost it was a great way for the lower class to make money, however because of regulations and health codes, it can take quite a bit of time and money for restaurants to start up in North America, allowing for large companies to take over.


A: There are many regulations and health codes in different parts of south America.

B: Could it also be the HUGE amount of money you need to put down for property and start up capital, also the fact that you have an advanced economy in North America but not in the south.

BTW, when it comes to deregulation, ask Chile and Argentina how that worked out.


To expand on that, Union Crackdowns could have never happened under a true libertarian society. Indeed, libertarianism serves the working class quite nicely.

Just some food for thought.

Your gonna need to explain that because that makes absolutely no sense, and defies all logic and historical precident.

[Napoleon Winston]

Actually no its not, especially with relatively high unemployment, because your saving money, if it was such a bad buisiness model, why do the successfull capitalists do it so much? They are competing for investment and sales, while workers are competing for jobs, meaning capitalists need to cut costs as much as possible and because workers are competing they don't need to worry about loosing productivity.

But they do, it takes time and money to train workers, and forcing them to work untill they burn out is inefficient.




A: There are many regulations and health codes in different parts of south America.

B: Could it also be the HUGE amount of money you need to put down for property and start up capital, also the fact that you have an advanced economy in North America but not in the south.

BTW, when it comes to deregulation, ask Chile and Argentina how that worked out.

Where I was there where no regulations.
And from what I saw it was working out fairly well, true, it was poor and poverty was an issue, however no one was starving on the street, it was rare to see a homeless person (Unlike where I live, in big citys its the norm), and the people had jobs, you could make a living with anything from shining shoes to painting on the sidewalk (both of which would be shut down in Canada or the US).




Your gonna need to explain that because that makes absolutely no sense, and defies all logic and historical precident.

Most of the crackdowns where done by police and military serving corporate interests, by separating public and private interests worker unions would no longer have to fear being arrested or shot for their beliefs.

[not a leftist]

have an infraction for prejudiced language, also restricted...
Hahaha, this speaks volumes of the type of "liberty" leftists believe in. I guess you can't operate on the rotten structure that is leftism without censorship blaring out reason in favor of your pre-chosen worldview.

Blah...Blah...Blah...

No-one gives a shit what you are saying
Whoa, this fits into what I just said quite nicely


Not a leftist, woud you be so kind as to address my issues, considering tictoc left?

And what specifically are you talking about specifically? I'm not super keen on reading this entire thread.


we would be far more economically and technologically advanced if we had a freer market early on.
>lol
Why is that lol-worthy? Why do you disagree with that? Because if you disagree that competition and free transaction produce strong economies, you are basically arguing against reality. One things I am OK with is leftists arguing against free transaction from a philosophical standpoint, fine. "Property shouldn't exist, equality is better etc", I will grant you that you can have such views. But actually arguing against the effectiveness against the free market is not an opinion, it's just fucking wrong, so I will call out such disingenuous bullshit.

[Revolution starts with U]

Calling someone a faggot is "reason?"

[not a leftist]

Calling someone a faggot is "reason?"

It's not reason and it's not anti-reason, it's just how I post. Just like how I used "fucking" in the previous post and I didn't literally need to, we are just individuals that have individual ways of doing things. Why did you point out just one of them? And why was it labeled as prejudiced when it obviously wasn't?

[Revolution starts with U]

"Fucking" and/or "faggot" is reasonable discourse?
I pointed this out because it was absurd you were complaining about "censorship drowning out reason" when you got infracted for an irrational concept. And you WERE NOT censored. Don't be silly.
"Tic Toc is a fag" is definitely prejudiced language, bro.

[not a leftist]

Use bad words doesn't make my post MORE or LESS reasonable. that's what I am saying. Calling someone a faggot isn't prejudiced because I'm not using it to attack him even if he were gay. If if he is gay, how is the relevant, why be scared?

[Revolution starts with U]

Ok, but you still weren't censored. You were punished... big difference.
And using those words certainly isn't reasonable, so it is kinda dumb to claim that they were "censoring reason."
You used it as an ad hominem, implying there is something inherently wrong with being gay. That's prejudiced, and bigotry. Oh how I wish for the days when bigots didn't even use the pretense of "Im not a bigot, but...(some bigotted comment)"
Him being/not being gay isn't relevant. And that is EXACTLY why you were infracted for it. What does he have to fear? Bigots chasing him down and beating him with baseball bats.

[JustMovement]

When you use the word faggot you imply (knowlingly or not) that being homosexual is something negative. The word does have two seperate meanings, but the general insult is derived from the specific derogatory term for a homosexual.

The freedom of speech issue is inane. This is a leftist message board, if you cannot abide by the rules go post somewhere else.

[not a leftist]

I don't care about gays or straights, I just like using the word faggot, because that's what Tik Tok is. You don't have to fear words, I promise you. And I don't want to leave, because posting here and getting responses is teaching more than 100 books. Apparently leftists have dropped the entire facade of being pro-liberty/freedom.

[#FF0000]

Apparently leftists have dropped the entire facade of being pro-liberty/freedom.

being all about freedom doesn't mean we have to let people use slurs around here sorry brah

[Revolution starts with U]

No, if you want to call people fags, do it on your own time. Not on ours. You are infringing upon our liberty to not have to deal with prejudiced scum such as yourself.

Again, you are saying there is something inherently wrong with being a "fag."

[JustMovement]

This is not some abstract question about "freedom of speech." This is a forum open to the public, not a public forum. Why should your need to express yourself with profanitis take precedence over othrer members having to feel offended?

[Capitulo]

Do you support Doctor and Congressman Ron Paul, Mr. OP?

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's not reason and it's not anti-reason, it's just how I post. Just like how I used "fucking" in the previous post and I didn't literally need to, we are just individuals that have individual ways of doing things. Why did you point out just one of them? And why was it labeled as prejudiced when it obviously wasn't?

Replace "faggot" with "nigger" and try to pass a thought through your tiny tiny brain.

"Tik-tok is a nigger"... Yeah, that doesn't sound prejudiced either...

Fucking goober.

[RGacky3]

But they do, it takes time and money to train workers, and forcing them to work untill they burn out is inefficient.


Again, it does, but you also loose money by giving time off, having them work slower and so on, and again, with high unemployment your gonna get more while giving less.

You did'nt really respond.


Where I was there where no regulations.
And from what I saw it was working out fairly well, true, it was poor and poverty was an issue, however no one was starving on the street, it was rare to see a homeless person (Unlike where I live, in big citys its the norm), and the people had jobs, you could make a living with anything from shining shoes to painting on the sidewalk (both of which would be shut down in Canada or the US).


What magical country was this, I have to know the country before I call bullshit.

BTW, there are bad regulations (like stopping people from working on the street, or selling on the street, which was a big reason for the atenco revolution in 2006 that was exclusively leftist, and supported by socialists all around the world, libertarians did'nt say shit because it was poor people doing something), and there are good regulations, you can't paint them all in one brush.


Most of the crackdowns where done by police and military serving corporate interests, by separating public and private interests worker unions would no longer have to fear being arrested or shot for their beliefs.

Actually most of them were done by private goons, but guess what, if the cops were not there, private goons would be cheaper (because you don't have to worry about loosing your job or getting arrested), and it would be a lot worse. Thats a terrible terrible argument, also Walmart, and other corporations doing union busting has nothing to do with the state.

[RGacky3]

Hahaha, this speaks volumes of the type of "liberty" leftists believe in. I guess you can't operate on the rotten structure that is leftism without censorship blaring out reason in favor of your pre-chosen worldview.


This is a discussion forum, having rules for a discussion forum is not limiting freedom, any more than .... having rules in a pingpong match is.

[Capitulo]

Swearing makes it harder to reason with you. Nobody wants to be the one seen siding with the foul-mouthed opposition. Keep language to a minimum and only use it for extreme emphasis, and then you get even more power out of the words.

[Jazzratt]

Swearing makes it harder to reason with you. Nobody wants to be the one seen siding with the foul-mouthed opposition. Keep language to a minimum and only use it for extreme emphasis, and then you get even more power out of the words. Just to clarif this is the view of Capitulo alone, I personally use a lot of profanity in my posts. What I don't use, because I'm not a homophobic bellpiece, is prejudiced language. I certainly don't try to pretend like "faggot" isn't a massively homophobic slur because that would make me look like an absolute cretin.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think notaleftist has outstayed his welcome. Maybe everyone would feel more comfortable with him down the barrel of the bancannon so he can go and not be bigoted on other forums by calling random people ''faggots''.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Why is that lol-worthy? Why do you disagree with that? Because if you disagree that competition and free transaction produce strong economies, you are basically arguing against reality...But actually arguing against the effectiveness against the free market is not an opinion, it's just fucking wrong, so I will call out such disingenuous bullshit.

Wow, these definitely look like the arguments of someone with a masters in economics.

.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Use bad words doesn't make my post MORE or LESS reasonable. that's what I am saying. Calling someone a faggot isn't prejudiced because I'm not using it to attack him even if he were gay. If if he is gay, how is the relevant, why be scared?
'Use bad words doesn't make my post MORE or LESS reasonable.'
Using Homophobic terms does indeed make it non-reasonable.
'Calling someone a faggot isn't prejudiced because I'm not using it to attack him even if he were gay.'
You're using Homophobic terms which are indeed prejudiced even if it is not to be used in a manner that is directly homophobic, as the term is at its own a homophobic term.
'If if he is gay, how is the relevant, why be scared?'
Its relevant in the sense that Homophobic speech of this manner is not to be allowed.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wook7uuJK2A/TbYkapHy8aI/AAAAAAAAGbo/w8lGA9nJsCE/s1600/lenin-cat-web.jpg