/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.56436596]

taxation is theft and we allow it. we resign and give our money to the clowns in power, we fund their terrorist agendas. if we just stopped paying all at the same time this whole thing would crumble.

[Anonymous No.56436643]

>>56436596
taxation is the least of our fucking problems
wwiii is starting

[Anonymous No.56437158]

>>56436596
>Market exists
>Those in charge of market charge a fee to use the market
>"OH MY GOD, THEFT!!!"
How childish are these people?

[Anonymous No.56437188]

>>56437158
>don't like the fees being charged by the "market owner"
>tries to set up your own market
>gets arrested, sued and thrown into a cage

Yeah bro, lolbertarians are SO dumb. Not like us enlightened bootlickers. :)

[Anonymous No.56437196]

>>56437158
Hear! hear! God Bless the Government for allowing the market to exist and not pressing the boot harder down on our throats!

[Anonymous No.56437201]

>>56436596
>everyone stop paying taxes
>the army doesn't have any budget anymore
>neither does the police
>you end up either being invaded by a foreign power, or a mafia type organization becomes the de facto new government and you end up paying even more taxes

[Anonymous No.56437225]

>>56437201
>doesn't like the idea of being governed by a mafia-like organisation
>supports the State

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

[Anonymous No.56437252]

>>56437225
Power structures are inherent to the human condition. Anarchy is fundamentally impossible, power structures will form as soon as groups form. You'll either be governed or become the governor yourself.

[Anonymous No.56437347]

>>56437188
>>56437196
Leave the zone under the protection of the state's military, or gain enough power to usurp that power. Don't have enough capital? Tough, that's life.

[Anonymous No.56437356]

>>56437225
Evil you know vs evil you don't, if you're American which I'm assuming you are given how stupid you sound, you oay about 30% in taxes and enjoy a lot of constitutional liberties.
If you entirely dismentel this state, the organization that unavoidably takes its place is likely to be much much less lenient.

[Anonymous No.56437545]

>>56436596
Fucking based
The most important thread on biz in months
>>56436643
They’re funding WW3 with our taxes dummy

[Anonymous No.56437560]

>>56437201
The literal dumbest thing I’ve read today
The govt and mafia already run the world

[Anonymous No.56437569]

>>56437356
They don’t need taxes to fund the govt
They just print the money without any backing anyway
You’re just in love with being cucked

[Anonymous No.56437570]

>>56437201
So worst case scenario for ancapistan is the status quo?
>>56437158
>Government controls the market because they just do okay

[Anonymous No.56437576]

>>56437252
>anarchy = no hierarchies

You are an ignorant Communist, clearly. Actually read a book for once in your life, or go back to Tumblr where you belong.

Say 'hi' to Leftypol for me.

https://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy

[Anonymous No.56437631]

>>56437356
>accuses someone of being stupid
>'dismentel'
Pick one, and only one.

I don't know why I'm surprised though. Anyone who thinks getting 30% of YOUR HARD EARNED PROPERTY stolen, in exchange for being conscripted, spied-upon and routinely humiliated is obviously not going to have a firm grasp of English, as they likely to do not even have a firm grasp of finger painting.

Anyone who thinks the American state isn't a vile, tyrannical, abomination is beyond help. The fact that they have a 'Constitution' is meaningless, insofar as they simply ignore it. They gaslight the whole world into thinking their free, and you've fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

[Anonymous No.56437755]

>>56437560
>>56437569
Money printing is a tax with extra steps, retard

>>56437570
>getting invaded by Mexico is the status quo

>>56437631
>no counter-argument, have to ressort to empty moralfagging
And I'm ESL you retard, what langage do you speak beside english? None? Thought so.

[Anonymous No.56437817]

>>56437755
Firstly, there is a counter-argument. Evidently, my not including subheadings and some nice, bright, neon lights to signpost them tripped you up. Sorry, anon! I argue that your defence of the American status quo is faulty because it is premised upon a 30% tax (which is theft, unless you can argue otherwise, which you can't by the way) being non-tyrannical, and Americans having some 'Constitutional liberties' (which are routinely ignored), means that Statelessness would necessarily be worse. Your bankrupt line of reasoning is essentially asserting that because things COULD we worse, things are currently good. This is-- of course-- absurd, and akin to saying that a person being stabbed is not suffering, because some people in the world are burning alive. You assert with no evidence that Statelessness would be 'less lenient'. Even if I had no argument, it would be better than the specious one you have proffered. Try again, ESL-bro.

Thirdly: Ich kann auch Deutsch sprechen.

[Anonymous No.56437846]

>>56437755
At least it doesn’t discourage people to work you cuck
Wait until your dumbass l arms about fractional reserve banking

[Anonymous No.56437870]

>>56437755
Tariffs are a tax that protect American jobs but you don’t hear anyone mention the tariff system was better than income tax too

[Anonymous No.56437875]

>>56437570
Government controls the market because they have the most power. But I'm sure if you had the most power you'd instantly usher in a utopia, right?

[Anonymous No.56437882]

>>56437870
>advocating for tariffs
>just blockade YOUR OWN COUNTRY bro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_or_Free_Trade

[Anonymous No.56437885]

>>56437875
Just because they have power doesn't mean they should. Are you mentally challenged?

[Anonymous No.56437889]

>>56437347
Idiotic take.
You’ve clearly read as much as this guy
>>56437252
Which let’s face it. Has been social media and that’s it.

Two of the dumbest takes I’ve seen.

[Anonymous No.56437911]

>>56437882
>Free trade means free production. Now fully to free production it is necessary not only to remove all taxes on production, but also to remove all other restrictions on production. True free trade, in short, requires that the active factor of production, Labor, shall have free access to the passive factor of production, Land. To secure this all monopoly of land must be broken up, and the equal right of all to the use of the natural elements must be secured by the treatment of the land as the common property in usufruct of the whole people.[5]

[Anonymous No.56437930]

>>56437911
Agreed. There should be no taxes on production. However, private ownership is essential to avoid the phenomenon of the 'tragedy of the commons'. This may take the form of collective ownership (i.e., multiple parties forming a corporation which holds certain assets, including land), so long as said ownership organisation ultimately comes down to the voluntary, contractual agreement of private individuals.

[Anonymous No.56437934]

>>56437885
>>56437889
It's not a matter of "should" it's a matter of who has the power and the rules they set. You could make the case that every man ought to own an acre of land, it won't make it so, nor will it outline how such a state of affairs could be brought about or maintained.

[Anonymous No.56437938]

>>56437846
Money printing is worse because it's too indirect for normies to notice, they still see inflation like a force of nature caused by external circumstances in 2023.
It also discourage saving and promotes usury, really nasty stuff.

>>56437817
Things are good, you're a coddled first world baby, you have no idea how good you have it as an american citizen compared to almost every other places in the world, including western europe and rich east asian countries.

Statelessness isn't a thing that can ever last, thinking you can abolish it is as deluded as thinking you can abolish currencies, or conflict.
You will get a new state one way or another but with none of the traditions and ideology the american system still carries.

[Anonymous No.56437967]

>>56436596
>retarded libertarian high school idea
>"if we just stopped paying all at the same time this whole thing would crumble" as if this is desirable to people with normal priorities
you need to be 18+ to post here

[Anonymous No.56437972]

>>56437938
Do you know what the difference between an assertion and an argument is? Perhaps you'd like to try refuting me again?

[Anonymous No.56437985]

>>56437967
Yeah man. Imagine a world without politicians, standing armies, glowies, central banks, bailouts, and "foreign aid". What a nightmare.

[Anonymous No.56437989]

>>56437938
Uhh, excuse me, I want to live in an area with other people while making zero concessions or compromises and also never have any conflict. I am very intelligent.

[Anonymous No.56438003]

>>56437972
you did not even attempt to make a case for why statelessness is possible, yet alone desirable, retard. there's nothing for that guy to engage with because you didn't even present anything of substance (don't bother btw no one wants to read your low iq dribble). know your place, nothing in your life suggests you have some unique insight into economics or politics, we do not need you to crudely try to reinvent the wheel with your midwit idealism

[Anonymous No.56438009]

>>56437989
>libertarianism is when you refuse to engage in dialogue with people and make no compromises. I am very intelligent.

No, that would be Statism, which-- unlike libertarianism-- is typified by attempting to achieve "resolutions" via coercion.

[Anonymous No.56438030]

>>56436596
Inflation is theft, will get you even more agreement

[Anonymous No.56438031]

>>56437985
you are literally dumber and more naive than the CHOP/CHAZ guys for thinking these things would not immediately be replaced by less sophisticated equivalents. the simple fact is that you genuinely don't fully understand the roles all these supposed boogeymen play in the world, so your mental simulation of what the world could look like without it is inherently flawed.
>reminder: CHOP/CHAZ was founded on the premise that the police are evil and hunt black people, within a few days "community peacekeepers" were appointed for obvious reasons, and within two weeks these peacekeepers ended up shooting two black teenagers to "protect the community"
this is what would happen in your dumb ancap world. people would have a need for things you didn't think of (like some sort oversight to make sure that people selling food aren't doing so with moldy equipment or poisonous ingredients), these oversight bodies - although technically private entities - would de facto replace the FDA, and you'd be right back to square one except with less competent people in each position. rinse and repeat for militaries, politicians, banks/lenders, charities/aid and intelligence agencies.

if you can't foresee this, at least get your GED before continuing to talk about politics

[Anonymous No.56438040]

>>56438003

Elsewhere in the thread I have made arguments for the desirability of Statelessness. In fact, I actually directly respond to the charge of 'LOL Americans actually have a great deal, so seeking something better is DUMB" because another anon made that same "argument" (all Statists are grown in the same lab).

Why should I be expected to respond with full theses to each inane rain of spittle that is sent my way?

I do apologise that every 200 words you read, you have to return to gooning. Please take your time and read the rest of what I've posted in this thread. I expect 10 hours should be sufficient, but perhaps I am being optimistic.

[Anonymous No.56438048]

>>56438009
you're falling into the exact same trap commies fall into, an idealistic reliance on people to be generally good, and complex societal problems to generally have potential compromising solutions that ultimately please both parties. this isn't how the world actually works, which is pretty obvious to most people, and no one is particularly keen on throwing away the most prosperous society ever created in history to see if some 105 IQ ancaps might have figured out a secret utopian way of organizing society that no one has thought of before, while simultaneously accounting for all possible externalities (such as, what if some sociopathic powerful/rich guy forms a large private militia to conquer as much land as possible)

[Anonymous No.56438067]

>>56438040
you type like you are wearing a fedora and you have not even attempted to argue against any of the common objections to statelessness that even a high school junior could think of, unfortunately. this is not a coincidence though, it's because no good arguments for your position exist

[Anonymous No.56438090]

>>56438031
As you note, many of the services that people rely upon today (the police, the courts, the FDA) would re-emerge in a Stateless context. This is a natural, happy, welcome and expected occurrence. I have no problem with police, courts, regulatory bodies etc. I only object to them when they are monopolies sustained by theft (i.e., taxes), because this renders the relationship between service provider and service-consumer one of sufferance, rather than one of mutual reliance. This leads us into the point at which you err: you blithely assert that 'public servants' are necessarily more competent than private service providers (all evidence to the contrary). This is essentially arguing that a monopoly results in better outcomes for consumers vis a vis free market, voluntary, competition. This is wrong because-- as I noted previously-- the monopoly has no incentive to actually provide optimised service. It rests on its laurels, and seeks to self-perpetuate through political action, rather than excellent service (as is the requirement for private entities).

https://mises.org/library/theory-socialism-and-capitalism-0, see ch. 9.

[Anonymous No.56438100]

>>56438048
>>56438067
Two posts, no waiting! Have I touched a nerve Karl?

[Anonymous No.56438112]

>>56438090
>I only object to them when they are monopolies sustained by theft (i.e., taxes)
why did you not immediately follow this sentence with an answer to the question any sane person would immediately go on to ask you: then how would these organizations be funded?

i'll give you three examples and you can give me an answer for each one that avoids obviously unwanted externalities, moral hazards and third-world tier corruption:
>the "FDA"
>the "police"
>a housing regulation agency
please explain how these would generate enough revenue to pay their workers and provide quality services, without them having to be paid by people who view them as adversarial to their own interests (restaurant owners, contractors, etc). would love to hear it!

[Anonymous No.56438113]

>>56438048
"what if some sociopathic powerful/rich guy forms a large private militia to conquer as much land as possible"

People fight back. Radical notion, I know! It's fair that it didn't occur to you. What if they lose though??? What if the rich sociopaths get to rule the world through violence and plunder? Gee. Who could even CONCEIVE of a world so dystopian. Obviously, such a world would have to be overthrown if it ever came into being, I'm with you! Pic related.

[Anonymous No.56438122]

>>56438113
>People fight back.
okay so no serious objection, just a vague appeal to "the good guys will win" plus the naive "isn't the world we have already exactly like this?", which as the other poster pointed out, fails to account for the fact that we do in fact have it better than any population has ever had it in human history

[Anonymous No.56438126]

>>56438112
"why did you not immediately follow this sentence with an answer to the question any sane person would immediately go on to ask you: then how would these organizations be funded?"

Because they would be paid for the way anything else is paid for: by stakeholders voluntarily making payments to them because they value them, and gain benefit from their existence.

"But if we didn't pay for supermarkets through taxes, how would people get groceries????"

[Anonymous No.56438133]

>>56438122
just to clarify here, we're talking about US soft power global hegemony vs attila the hun plundering and raping, which you are equating here as more or less the same thing, knowing full well that every person, including yourself, would prefer to live in the former world 1000 times over. libertarians always struggle on this point, failing to honestly acknowledge just how good our quality of life is under the "state" compared to how it historically has been or how bad it hypothetically could get

[Anonymous No.56438134]

>>56438122
I interacted with AIs more introspective and attentive.

[Anonymous No.56438143]

>>56438009
>"I would totally compromise with society around me if it was to my benefit!"
>"Oh, this society? That's theft!"
Every. time.

[Anonymous No.56438155]

>>56438133
"Things could be worse, therefore the current system is perfect." I am going to shoot you in the knee. Don't you dare complain though, because I COULD do it twice. :)

Also, your whitewashing of American foreign policy is beyond embarrassing, and evinces an ignorance I previously did not think possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker
https://www.youtube.com/@talesoftheamericanempire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Tgv-ABoZ4

[Anonymous No.56438159]

>>56438126
>Because they would be paid for the way anything else is paid for: by stakeholders voluntarily making payments to them because they value them, and gain benefit from their existence.
so essentially you are suggesting (just like every other ancap, what a surprise) that the police, the "FDA" and other regulatory bodies would be funded out of essentially voluntary taxation, donations people make out of the kindness of their heart (because you can easily freeload in a big enough society). not only are we relying on peoples benevolence though, we're also relying on people to be rational enough to voluntarily decide that they must take short-term financial hits to invest in future outcomes or regulatory bodies of which they can't actually see or feel the effects directly.

in other words, we're expecting the average person to be altruistic, not particularly selfish, and most importantly, well-informed on a variety of issues. we're back to libertarian square one, this is the same non-solution every single ancap gives and it never sounds convincing.
i'll be charitable and give you one more chance to elaborate though: would people need to make individual donations to each entity they perceive to be valuable (relying on entirely unforeseen levels of general informedness) OR is there going to be some overarching body that might distribute a larger pool of funds to a variety of entities we mostly all agree are socially beneficial? (do you see where i'm going with this..)

[Anonymous No.56438170]

>>56437252
>>56437252
>>56437356
your argument essentially boils down to "it could be worse" while refusingbtu believe it could be better

in other words the same kind of sheep mindset of any tyranny in history

if people could be made to understand it didn't have to be this way and a better power structure could exist, they would happily fight for it

for example a state that doesn't print money to rob you blind behind your back
this is why lolberts made btc

[Anonymous No.56438177]

>>56438155
>both sides of every war commited copious amounts of war crimes, especially more than half a century ago back when essentially everyone was still a barbarian
wow, this changes everything. again, you failed to engage with the substantive difference between how much more peaceful the world is now than it was 70 years ago, and how much more peaceful and pleasant it was 70 years ago than it was 500 years ago. these are not points you CAN engage with though, because you'd have to give credit to the entities you're fully committed to being biased against

[Anonymous No.56438189]

>>56438155
also another Addendum:
>you are literally pic related in this post, i cannot believe you would try to pin that mindset on me, the guy who's saying "let's leave it to the people who understand this stuff", lmao
>i'm NOT american (or fake american/canadian/whatever), which makes it much easier to see through this low IQ "america bad" drivel that you weird self-loathing freaks always get up to. american foreign policy has had some terrible moments but by and large has been the largest force for global good the world has ever seen. pax americana was unironically real and an equivalent is IMPOSSIBLE under libertarianism, lol

[Anonymous No.56438231]

>>56438177
The world is more peaceful today, than it was 70 years ago, and 500 years ago, is not because of States. In fact, it is despite them. It is no surprise that the two most destructive wars in human history coincided with increases in the authority of the State (the 1800-1914 and 1919-1939). Peace is the product of free trade, diffused political authority, and mutually-assured-destruction. Note, that none of these are the State, and the first two are HARMFUL to the State.

[Anonymous No.56438236]

>>56438189
The CIA are really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days, huh. :(

[Anonymous No.56438258]

>>56438159
"i'll be charitable and give you one more chance to elaborate though: would people need to make individual donations to each entity they perceive to be valuable (relying on entirely unforeseen levels of general informedness) OR is there going to be some overarching body that might distribute a larger pool of funds to a variety of entities we mostly all agree are socially beneficial?"

Firstly, 'individual donations to [entities] they perceive to be valuable' is just a payment you moron. Secondly, there could be overarching body. It can even call itself the 'government' and make calls on where to allocate the money given to it. I don't care. All that matters is that people have the choice to secede with their property/withhold their income. What matters is CONSENT. Y'know, that thing a woman will NEVER give you.

[Anonymous No.56438268]

>>56438231
"Free trade" can only exist in the framework of a market place, and the kind of peace-inducing global market place you reference requires the extremely complex coordination of a vast number of extremely large groups of people in many places on an ongoing basis. To imagine this could be possible without a thing resembling a state is laughable. In short, you present a buffoonish and ideologically driven point of view.

[Anonymous No.56438271]

>>56438231
>It is no surprise that the two most destructive wars in human history coincided with increases in the authority of the State (the 1800-1914 and 1919-1939).
no dummy, they OBVIOUSLY coincided with the rise in technology that allowed killing people at scale. the fact that you tried to dishonestly make that point without acknowledging the elephant in the room means we've depleted the ancap reservoir and you're now in full cope/bad faith mode.
>reminder:
>did not provide an answer to any of the difficult follow-up questions ancaps can never answer
>failed to account for why the world has gotten so much better under the growing "authority of the State"
>ideology based on pure idealism and misunderstanding of human nature
>doesn't understand basic game theory
>proposed solutions are essentially taxation but voluntary (so, at best your financial situation stays the same)
also
>the first two are HARMFUL to the State.
massive cope, the state loves free trade, and mutually assured destruction (the one you skipped) is LITERALLY the product of a massive physics initiative undertaken by the state that no private entity could hope to replicate
i have no idea why you keep adding commie images by the way, when you are ideologically way closer to western commies than i am, especially in terms of foreign policy.

but i've bullied and humiliated you enough, have a nice day dreaming of the utopia

[Anonymous No.56438278]

>>56438258
>Firstly, 'individual donations to [entities] they perceive to be valuable' is just a payment you moron.
lol HAD to respond to this one - you PAY for SERVICES you idiot. restaurants don't benefit from health inspections, they're not going to voluntarily hire people who exist to keep an eye on them and fuck them over when they fail. you have never actually thought about this, please just get your GED and get a job
>All that matters is that people have the choice to secede with their property/withhold their income.
how can we feasibly ensure that these people cannot benefit from emergency services, cannot use roads, or anything else that is funded by this voluntary taxpayer money? this is a logistical nonstarter. you have never really thought this through

[Anonymous No.56438280]

>>56438271
"failed to account for why the world has gotten so much better under the growing "authority of the State"

Correlation = causation.

The ABSOLUTE STATE of Commies. This is just sad. Finish 3rd grade, then come back to me, champ. Tell your mum I said 'hi'.

[Anonymous No.56438290]

>>56438278
also
>call the police
>"alright sir, that'll be $89.99"

[Anonymous No.56438303]

>>56438290
Why didn't you just pay the annual subscription, anon?

Clearly, you being murdered is in society's best interests, given your evidently sub-three digit IQ. Then again, who am I kidding? You could live to 1000 and never worm your way back into the gene pool.

[Anonymous No.56438310]

>>56438303
>Paying the local Mafia not to destroy my store is just a subscription service I pay for
The irony is you have no idea how bad things would be if your ideas came to fruition.

[Anonymous No.56438318]

>>56438290
Drat, if only I still had my firearms and didn't have to rely on another group who have no allegiance to risk their lives on my behalf. Clearly the state is the answer

[Anonymous No.56438321]

>>56436643
Apparently smarter than you and this bait post.

[Anonymous No.56438324]

>>56438310
"Paying someone for the service of defending my store is the same as paying someone to not destroy my store."

Laughable. Back to /bunkerpol/, bucko.

[Anonymous No.56438336]

>>56438278
>Be restaurant
>Put cyanide in food and not tell anyone
>Everyone who goes there gets poisoned
>Get sued
>Business fails

[Anonymous No.56438351]

>>56438336
i'm glad your hypothetical society can account for the case where the chef is intentionally putting cyanide in the food (good job!), what about the case where in 0.1% of cases there's some obscure cross-contamination incident due to not following proper protocol in the kitchen? what about restaurants that use ingredients that have shown to be carcinogenic in a 20 year time horizon but none of its guests have any way of knowing? the fact that you gave these answer shows that you are even dumber than that other guy (no surprise, lolberts tend to be dumb) and that you of all people really shouldn't even be thinking about how society should be structured

>>56438318
>every situation that necessitates calling 911 for can be solved with my trusty ar-15
please use your firearms to blow a 5.77mm hole in your head you obtuse fucking retard

[Anonymous No.56438362]

>>56438351
>>56438318
Getting testy, are we?

[Anonymous No.56438376]

>>56438351
>Guns can't help you need to rely on the state
Isn't it past your bedtime, Obama? Michelle wants to peg tonight

[Anonymous No.56438382]

>>56438376
>i can fight off every bad guy because i'm rambo and not some meek virgin on the internet
>911 is only for contacting the police to fight niggers, and i cannot conceive of a situation where i would need an ambulance or the fire department
K I L L Y O U R S E L F :P

[Anonymous No.56438389]

>>56438382
You didn't say 911 in the first post did you? You said police.

[Anonymous No.56438397]

>>56438382
"Maybe if I start projecting, they'll become a socialist like me!"

[Anonymous No.56438431]

>>56438389
i replied to my own post in which i said "benefit from emergency services". but even if i didn't clearly say that, why does it matter if i explicitly said it or not? your argument and your society would still need to be able to answer for it, and "IM A COOL GUY WITH GUNS" is a worthless cop-out response to "what if you urgently need emergency assistance". only a bonafide retard would think to answer this way, because a smart person would mentally check to see if their solution passes some common test cases first (yours passed "the cyanide restaurant" and "lone unarmed aggressor i can kill with my gun", congratulations)

[Anonymous No.56438440]

>>56438290
>>56438431
>call the police
>CALL THE POLICE
Smartest socialist

[Anonymous No.56438441]

>>56438397
you are experiencing a psychotic break from reality if you think you are arguing with a communist or socialist. it's usually very telling of how bad someone's side in an argument is if they cannot explain or understand the opposing side coherently, and you just failed about as hard as it is possible to fail lol

[Anonymous No.56438443]

damn a socialist is losing his mind ITT, well done lolberts

[Anonymous No.56438447]

>>56438440
>only a bonafide retard would think to answer this way, because a smart person would mentally check to see if their solution passes some common test cases first (yours passed "the cyanide restaurant" and "lone unarmed aggressor i can kill with my gun", congratulations)
if you cannot see that "call the police" followed by "that'll be $89.99 sir" was a jab and not the full thrust of the argument i was expanding upon, you genuinely should consider suicide

[Anonymous No.56438462]

>>56438447
>I don't have health insurance and that's the market's fault

[Anonymous No.56438467]

>>56437201
You don't need income taxes to have a state retard. What do you think the world was doing before the jews weasled income taxes into policy? There are plenty of ways to raise capital without taxes whether it's tariffs or offering opt-in services.

[Anonymous No.56438468]

>>56438443
Thanks anon, just trying to fight the good fight. I've lost some pretty precious relatives to Statism sadly. Thanks for your support. :)

[Anonymous No.56438473]

>>56438462
>i am a cool gun guy who does not need to rely on some fucking random group to come to my aid
>but also of course i would be sensible and obediently pay my emergency services subscription! :)
big brained user itt. at least we finally figured out how we can deal with those pesky restaurant owners that put cyanide in the food

[Anonymous No.56438480]

>>56438441
Read a book (if you can):
https://mises.org/library/theory-socialism-and-capitalism-0

[Anonymous No.56438481]

>>56438468
>my relatives won't talk to me anymore because of my schizophrenic ideology
KEK, deserved. thanks for posting your diary here for me to make fun of. once we abolish the state they'll come back to you in no time!

[Anonymous No.56438487]

>>56438481
No, anon. They got killed.

[Anonymous No.56438493]

>>56438480
>random ancap retard wrote a book in which he defines socialism to mean something else than what it actually means
i'll get right on that pal, i cannot wait to absorb this valuable information. reminds me of how lenin defined imperialism to mean "imperialism is when you do [imperialist actions] and you're also a capitalist at the same time, else it's not imperialism"
fringe extremist weirdos really love redefining emotionally loaded words so they can weaponize them against people with good ideas

[Anonymous No.56438496]

>>56438487
nigger what? they got killed by the state? please elaborate i am so curious what the story is here

[Anonymous No.56438502]

>>56438493
"This person defines a term differently than others do, and is not a social democrat. Therefore, their definition must necessarily be invalid, regardless of its logicality or utility."

From the people who brought you "A can't define a 'woman', I'm not a biologist."

[Anonymous No.56438527]

>>56438502
>"This person defines a term differently than others do, and is not a social democrat. Therefore, their definition must necessarily be invalid, regardless of its logicality or utility."
this is actually just objectively bad logic. the utility of a DESCRIPTIVE WORD is literally defined by how well it can communicate an idea. if you repurpose a word that has a generally understood meaning and then assign a different meaning to it (instead of just coming up with a different word, there's quite a few phonetic options, we're not running out any time soon) you're intentionally communicating poorly. the word was chosen that way because it carries a certain emotional baggage: most people rightly think "socialism bad", so if i can label my opponents "socialist", their ideas will look "bad". oldest trick in the book, progressives use the term "nazi" this way too, but you're no better than them

[Anonymous No.56438535]

>>56438527
>thinks 'socialism' is a well-defined term

Ask two different socialists what socialism is. I dare you.

[Anonymous No.56438544]

>>56438527
expanding because i genuinely don't trust in your ability to understand what i'm saying: the point is that you can hijack the "socialism = bad" part of peoples brain and attach that stigmatized label to something else EVEN IF that something else doesn't contain any of the traits of socialism that people are averse to, this is why it's a dishonest tactic employed on purpose by some weird ancap dork

anyway, one more response in me before i have to go, give me your strongest ancap points (and the story of your relatives) so i can own you one more time

[Anonymous No.56438553]

>>56438535
they will have disagreements around the edges but all will agree the core essence of socialism entails workers owning the means or production (which is a stupid idea for obvious reasons). if someone is opposed to that they are definitionally NOT a socialist, just like someone who wants to uphold class hierarchy is not a capitalist or someone who wants a strong state with mandatory taxation is not an ancap, regardless of auxiliary beliefs

[Anonymous No.56438562]

>>56438553
>someone who wants to uphold class hierarchy is not a capitalist
not a communist*
also, quite telling that when you say "ask two different socialists" you suddenly know exactly who the socialists are (actual socialist) and who the socialists are not (people like me)

[Anonymous No.56438563]

>>56438544
Does it occur to you that you should at least maybe actually READ the definition he gives, before you dismiss it? It's just the first few pages, champ. I believe in you.

[Anonymous No.56438582]

>>56436596
Taxes aren't needed. Most money is simply printed out of thin air, and things would work fine without taxation. Taxes are just used to set a limit on (pleb) wealth accumulation so they never get too uppity of accumulate beyond house nigger status, and they also act to browbeat the middle class into demanding less (!) tangible services provided by their government.

[Anonymous No.56438585]

>>56438544
For strong, comprehensively argued points, I would refer you to:
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto, and
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

The latter is very short and very accessible. I really do recommend it. I've been quite mean to you this thread, but that was just done in sport. Thank you for taking the time to have this discussion. I hope you have a pleasant rest of your day.

And may we ALL make it.

[Anonymous No.56438637]

>>56438563
if someone claimed to have redefined the word "rapist" in such a way that it includes you (assuming you have never done what is conventionally known as rape) then no, there is no utility in doing so.

either the new definition of rape will describe a different action (which might be interesting to discuss in a vacuum, hijacking the term "rape" would have been a dishonest move by the author), or the author misunderstands what rape is.
what the author cannot do, no matter how he orchestrates his sentences, is make you a rapist by how he redefines rape, if you haven't raped anyone. he can only dilute the definition to a point where the term no longer deserves its emotional loading.

to humor you, i did read the first few pages of the link you sent me and read what he had to say, and i'm not surprised: he does make a lucid and helpful distinction between two different ways of viewing property (employing the lens of the non-aggression principle), but there is absolutely no need to hijack the term "socialism" here other than as a rhetorical device to paint his ideological opponents (most of whom have middle-of-the-road, moderate stances) with a stigmatized brush. again, this is a perfectly tenable and even interesting lens to view things from, but the terminology feels like it's being used in bad faith - just assign the opposing side a less normatively loaded term.

but anyway, likewise, enjoyed talking to you and no hard feelings (fuck that other guy though), have a nice day friend, will check out the shorter text and see if it proposes anything i haven't considered before

[Anonymous No.56438641]

>>56437158
>you owe me 20% of your profit
>because I say so

[Anonymous No.56438664]

>>56438493
>>56438637
Fuck you too. Lol kys

[Anonymous No.56438688]

>>56438637
Glad to hear it man. May God bless you. :)

[Anonymous No.56439165]

>>56436596
>and we allow it
I moved to Dubai as soon as I could afford a ticket, anon

[Anonymous No.56439562]

that was a great conversation to read, very informative to get both sides of the debate. id really love to give a shit but i think i should get back to whats in my scope and focus on making my life better

[Anonymous No.56439578]

>>56436596
>literal jew complains that paying rent is theft
lol
LMAO
lolbertarians, everyone

[Anonymous No.56439588]

>>56438641
yeah, that's how living in a society works chuddykins

[Anonymous No.56439596]

>monarchy was allegedly tyranny
>back in the monarchy days you were paying 5% tax total max in all forms combined
>fast forward to now
>"free" republics universally feature 40-50+% taxes combined
>the votecattle go along with it

[Anonymous No.56439649]

>>56439596
Why aren't you doing anything about it, Ivan?

[Anonymous No.56439664]

>>56439578
>>56439588
>>56439649

You spam like a paid poster and have the gall to call anybody else a shill? Lol. Fuck you you bootslobbering little nigger.

[Anonymous No.56439690]

>>56439664
I accept your concession, Ivan.