/lit/ - Literature

>>17410184
If only he had shown some evidence for any of his claims.

>>17410184
And what condition could prevent corporations from corrupting the state?

>>17410207
Guns

>>17410222
State could own guns and still be corrupted.

>>17410243
Jesus christ... guns in the hands of the population you fucking idiot

>>17410184
They work together. Pretend to limit or end the state, and the wealthy just grow the bureaucracy all over again. They want the money.

>>17410193
Today is evidence enough

>>17410276
The US is well armed. The corporate state still rules them.

Solution is to eliminate state AND capital
Hayek is outdated

>>17410341
What prevents the state returning in a different form?

>have free market
>human nature still exists and capital still holds power over people
>biggest winners of the free market use capital to influence politicians
>no more free market
whew its that easy to poke holes in liberal capitalism

>>17410276
Doesnt work either, you cocksucking american maggot.

>>17410371
Lol

>>17410355
The same thing that escorted it into the dustbin in the first place. A united effort to do everything for ourselves

>>17410355
The only thing that would prevent the state from returning is humanity ceasing to exist. As long as groups form, the state will emerge.

>>17410184
>state stops doing stuff
>now there is real "competition"
>the logical conclusion of a competition is a winner
>monopolies

>>17410385
>Nothing changes! Everything has always been this way!! NOW AND FOREVER!!!

>>17410384
Semantics

>>17410384
>A unified effort effort to do everything for ourselves
thats a really sleek way of saying your plan is to destroy the lives of everyone around you on the basis that your fantasy will work out fine if billions of variables fall into place perfectly

imagine being this stupid lol. imagine actually believing you're doing good by pushing this inane faggotry instead of looking for actual viable solutions to the problems people face

>>17410408
A whole procedural sea-change, anon. Why else would there be such resistance and disinformation?

Power to the people, directly. An economy based on reality and value in each other. What could go wrong? “Drrr warlords!”

>>17410419
No, it’s a brief way of saying
All power to the people. Value in each other.
This would do the opposite of destroying lives

>>17410184
>He's right you know?
Hayek isn't talking about corporations, he's claiming government regulation of economic activity will always lead to gulags which is a totally different type of retard take.

>Capitalism only leads to monopolies when corporations collude with the state, not when it's actual free market
The criticism of monopolies from liberal retards is usually that their economically inefficient therefor in a world of nation states someone else more liberal can always benefit since regulation varies obviously. If by a "free market" you mean an economy without limited liability and individual owners than that's totally irrelevant and has noting to show for itself compared to what collectivist corporations have accomplished in the past hundred years. If corporations working with government create massively more impressive growth rates than that's a problem for liberalism intellectually.

>>17410473
>No
prove it

>>17410436
value is subjective. Who resolves those conflicts? This is the problem with ideology, just because you are stunted and limited by your belief system does not mean that everyone else is. Eventually conflicts get resolved with violence and subjugation, and no ideology is bigger than human nature.

>>17410506
value is accumulated techno-rationality not your fee fees

>>17410506
>value is subjective
What I’m saying.
>human nature
You don’t seem to understand what that means

>>17410518
Enlighten me then, what does my understanding of human nature lack?

>>17410184
>free markets
>PRECIOUSSS!?!?

>>17410400
If your ideal system has literally no viable historical precedent, it's dogshit and you should find something that's actually viable.
Simple as.

>>17410541
the funny thing about butterfly is you can tell just from her ideological reasoning that she is a bitter childless lesbian and her painfully narrow perspective is completely defined by that fact.
>"why yes i want everyone to take part in a 1 in a trillion gamble to fulfill my fantasy, its not like I have children or family that I care about and who would starve to death or be killed/enslaved/drafted in the inevitable chaos like during the civil war and famine that followed the Russian revolution, who cares, nothing to lose but my chains!"

leftists honestly deserve a the bullet and there is nothing immoral about a government giving it to them

>>17410608
>the person who holds almost identical views to me is my enemy because my ability to reason is so limited I only explore a sliver of the myriad possibilities yet am still so certain of my accuracy that I wish death on her

>>17410623
>the person who holds almost identical views to me
no

>>17410526
If everyone organizes their lives using advanced political principles of anarcho-communism (or whatever shade they prefer, whatever name you want to apply to it) would produce a generation of people more or less satisfied. If any malcontents emerge, the community would do whatever it takes to keep them from lashing out and whatever it take to keep that sort from emerging again.
This is in the abstract and there will be challenges, but a generally content and vigilant people will not fall to the same competitive warfare of states, kingdoms and empires, because they aren’t states, kingdoms and empires. Those are fragile entities.

They’re made of glass. Put your first through them and they break.
Punch a space of beach sand, you break it not.

>>17410637
the overton windows is absolutely a thing

>>17410541
Prehistory, zomia, Catalonia to the Chiapas and all the other tax dodgers in between.
Oh, it’s viable alright.

>>17410641
Pure ideology. You can believe something with all your heart that doesn't make it true. Again, contentment is subjective. What if 99% of the population is content but the rest are incensed with rage, what keeps society together? Who determines what is right? Is it moral or ethical? Do we all get together and put our opinions in? Or would that be too difficult.... maybe, we could select a group to speak on our behalf, and they could decide for us what is objectively true and then enforce it with violence. That would be a much better system than the state..... oh wait...

>>17410641
>those are fragile entities, theyre like glass!
>now let me explain to you how its less fragile to build a system that relies entirely on billions of people thinking and operating the exact same way based on the same principles with virtually no structural oversight beyond other people taking their own ideas of justice into their own hands via "community justice"

words cannot even begin to describe how stupid you are

>>17410673
>in direct democracy nothing happens!!!!
Dumb liberal

>>17410691
wow another non argument that fails to actually address anything very epic, classic butters

>>17410656
Catalonia was never anarchist, prehistory wasn’t anarchist, chiapas isnt anarchist, dodging taxes isnt anarchist. Typical anarchist retardation

>>17410703
spending fifteen dollars on words to communicate a five cent idea is all about projection rather than honest intellectual discourse

>>17410670
Comfort begets contentment
The 1% who feel “rage” for what reasons? They wish to kill? They will be dealt with. More, they wish to believe themselves better than the rest? Excellent! But what palace does such a demigod need? What rage?
> what keeps society together?
Our collective efforts. We do it already!
> Do we all get together and put our opinions in?
Direct democracy. Of course.
> maybe, we could select a group to speak on our behalf
I don’t advocate representative governance. But limited bodies perhaps are necessary.
> oh wait...
Why? Waiting for inflation to go through the roof?
Organize!

>>17410193
He literally did.

>>17410731
>Anarchism isn’t anarchism
>partial anarchism isn’t partial anarchism
Read a book or two

>>17410357
>political system is vulnerable to human nature!
That's applicable to all ideologies, not really a critique of any individual one.

>>17410737
oh, you're a troll ok silly me

>>17410656
>monke
>a bunch mountain dwelling tribes in the most isolated region in Asia
>a wartime economy that got BTFO by outsiders after nearly destroying themselves
>the poorest state in Mexico
Nice.

>>17410389
>>the logical conclusion of a competition is a winner
There's no winner. Business collapse and fall all the time. You can see it now in america how hedge funds get rekt by random internet shitposters.

>>17410766
true enough

>>17410478
>Hayek isn't talking about corporations
He's talking about corporations too retard. The book is about more than one thing.

>>17410778
a hedge fund is significantly different than a business like walmart that that millions of people rely on for essential services

>>17410771
>Pretend that was a troll!
I accept your concessions

>>17410775
People on the margins, yes. Read a book or two, shitfaced froggy.

>>17410802
Marry me butterfly. Please.

>>17410802
You haven’t made an argument yet, nor addressed any of the (admittedly shitty) points

>>17410793
And you think that if the state doesn't intervene Walmart will become an unstoppable monopoly over food products?

>>17410656

>it worked extremely briefly under certain circumstances in this extremely niche community on the margins of society so of course it will apply to communities of hundreds of millions of people with vastly different beliefs and priorities and be totally stable

lol

>>17410804
*puts Cheerios on your pinky finger*

>>17410819
Did you have a question, son?

>>17410829
The ridiculous expectations of you weak willed liberals. Come up with a question or something and stop (You)ing me

>>17410184
>Capitalism only leads to monopolies when corporations collude with the state
WRONG. Adam Smith knew industry leaders conspire against the public all the time. You haven't learned one of the most basic elements to capitalist economy that people knew and were writing about 250+ years ago. Read more.

>>17410778
>hedge funds get rekt by random internet shitposters
Is this really where you want to go? Those random shitposters had their discussion groups banned by Facebook and Reddit and their money pretty much stolen by Robinhood.
There's no way to "win" against that.

>>17410836
lol youre a hell of a lot more liberal than I am . what are my "ridiculous expectations", the only demand im making here is that we dont act like bitter childless lesbians with nothing to lose and throw away everything on the basis of a retarded fantasy that has virtually no viable application in real life. not exactly asking much

>>17410856
That's because there's colluding, not because of free market. There's no free market; the establishment are colluding with the media, the banks, the tech companies, etc. Who wins has nothing to do with capitalism and free market, it's just corruption.

>>17410802
>People on the margins, yes.
Not an argument.

>>17410778
Did you miss the massive collusion between the major companies to protect one of their own? The free market inevitably leads to an oligarchical corporate controlled pseudo-monopolized closed market

>>17410852
>Adam Smith knew industry leaders conspire against the public all the time.
So what? That doesn't mean they win.

>>17410878
What would prevent collusion in a real free market, then?

>>17410184

>>17410884
It would be worthless if the state & the central bank wasn't on their side backing them up.

>>17410859
>defends capitalism
>ur du librul


>>17410880
>if it hasn’t happened yet it can never happen
Talk about not an argument.
Okay. You’re all done here.

>>17410898
Between the state and corporations? Whatever it is, it's not really a critique of free market leading to monopolies but rather corruption leading to inefficient markets. That applies to all ideologies.

>>17410925
“Free markets” are freedom to corrupt.

>>17410946
"freedom" is freedom to corrupt

>>17410222
There are more guns per capita than anywhere in the world and we are still run by corporate interests. With an ever widening wealth gap.

>>17410954
Freedom originates from the Mesopotamian rituals of relieving the debt of slaves during poor harvesting seasons. Freedom is about obligation to others, not about positing new actions to others.

>>17410954
So you see the problem
Or you approve of the problem?

>>17410977
oh yea I'm not the anon defending free markets, I'm just stopping in to shit on you because your own statement applies to your own retarded beliefs just as well

>>17410924
>if it hasn’t happened yet it can never happen
This but unironically. Utopianism is retarded.

>>17411003
But everything that happened hadn't happened before it happened.

>>17410184
>remove the final remaining mechanism to rein in on multinational megacorps because said mechanism has been corrupted at times by megacorps
>*magic*
>megacorps somehow become restrained by themselves instead of becoming unelected de facto government

>>17410954
Quite frankly, it's also freedom to be less corrupt than the state, which is honestly along the lines Hayek was thinking when he wrote the Road to Serfdom

>>17411010
On what do you base the idea that this mechanism actually helped and it wasn't the one that--when corrupted, which is often--brought the negative effects you believe would otherwise exist? How do you reply to Hayek here >>17410746 (Chapter 4)

>>17410184
>doesn't understand middle school concept of power laws
>not owning a monopoly so you may finally own your freedom
>you will never make it

>>17410989
Take accumulative currency out of society and wonderful things start to happen.

>>17411003
>Rofl

>>17411032
>>doesn't understand middle school concept of power laws
What are those? We don't study "power laws" in middle school here.

>>17411029
>I propose massive change that would immediately and irrevocably shift power from (at least nominally) public to the few, massively conglomerated private interest
>No, the onus is on _you_ to prove why my proposal is a bad idea

>>17411045
>the free market is bad because a lack of regulations lets people with economic capital to dominate and manipulate the economy and enforce their will on others
>anyway here's why society needs to be based entirely around a free market of ideas in the form of direct democracy even though everything from plain old ignorance and psychological issues and dependencies to individuals with social and likely economic capital others dont have access to can manipulate others into believing extremely self destructive shit and pushing it on others via democracy

>>17411075
Do you think the free market is an untried controversial idea in 2020? Most criticism is that it's been tried and failed, not that it hasn't been tried yet.
Can you not answer what you base your belief on? I'm open that it can go either way, but I haven't heard a strong counter-argument to Hayek's. From what I see, businesses fall all the time and the only thing that keeps them from falling is state bail outs, not the free market. The same way empires fall all the time, so do corporations, but quicker.

>>17411103
You're just being an accelerationist but want to disguise it as something else. Try to think about what is being proposed teleologically without falling back to "muh intentions."

>>17411057
>not knowing basic mathematical properties

if you think "power law" means political power, the cabal got you FUCKING KEK.

>>17411092
>Direct democracy allows centralized powers to dominate/discourages sharing

>>17411229
>no one has ever been manipulated by their own misguided feelings or others with some form of power over them into doing something against their actual best interests when there's nothing holding them back from making that choice
not too bright are you...

>>17411261
You refuse to think about a bigger picture or believe in the trend it would lay out. You believe we’re all robots with a preset program, and that we’re all the same.
I make concessions for reality, but the contrarians like you never do.

>>17411229
remember when the french revolution dissolved the monarchy in the name of freedom from tyranny, then the exact same people almost instantly turned around and put a warmongering emperor on the throne by popular demand?

>>17411281
>You believe we’re all robots with a preset program, and that we’re all the same.
Your entire ideology, like all utopias, revolves around this exact premise.

well, he is still living in the illusion that 'free markets' could be freed from collective action. fatalism pure and simple

>>17411281
>You believe we’re all robots with a preset program, and that we’re all the same.
projecting much? your entire argument in every single thread you post in is " my system will work because people will think/act precisely the way I believe they will".
look at this post >>17411045 as a perfect example, you appear to believe that bartering or whatever without currency with magically make every single human turn the same way, or at least to a degree that the majority can enforce their will on the minuscule quantities of outliers

im saying the opposite, that there plenty of people who will agree with you and work hard to make your dream a reality exactly as you imagine it, and there are plenty of people who wont, and given that it relies entirely on insanely intimate cooperation of a massive scale, it is a complete ideological dead end that will just transform into something that does not at all resemble your best intentions just like every other leftist movement in human history.

>>17411045
>Take accumulative currency out of society and wonderful things start to happen.

>does not understand the basic concept of debits and credits

you will suffer, but unlike those who suffered and made it, you will suffer and never make it

Real life example: I work at a warehouse for a company that delivers drinks and food to regular folks which is owned by one of the biggest corporations in my country. They've recently bought the only competitor (a start-up from 2016 which first entered this market in my country), so that makes them a monopoly now. Thousands of workers have been laid off as a result, all without the government doing a single thing. Explain that one please.

>>17410919
>what is capital controversies

>>17411355
>>17411301
the sad thing is butters will probably ignore this and in a day or two she will be posting literally the exact same arguments again pretending that this conversation never happened

she is a perfect example of a willfully ignorant human being who will actively lie to herself or just block it out to avoid assimilating information that goes against her own preconceived notions

>>17411509
It means you are on the road to wagiedom (serfdom)

>>17410641
I understand what you are trying to get across butters, the issue is that the way you want to achieve that isn’t the right way. Discourse, or the swapping of ideas, is what has gotten us into this current mess. You want us to live in harmony like animals do, but you want to do that through ideas and ideology. Animals aren’t supposed to need ideology to live properly. Using ideology is just adding another movement to the world that is already overloaded with movements. Each movement that starts is opposed by another movement. I know this is a shitty thing to say but that will never work. It has never worked in the past, no matter how many books you spread, ideas you transfer, people you educate, you are just creating a bigger battleground for ideology.

You don’t believe what I am telling you, in the same way that I don’t believe the ideas you are expressing. There is no way to resolve this conflict because the conflict is artificial. Trying to resolve the conflict will create more conflict.

>>17411700
>You want us to live in harmony like animals do (...) Animals aren’t supposed to need ideology to live properly
yea... mankind has eaten from the tree of knowledge, we are never going back to paradise
not even religious myself but I always found that this is the perfect metaphor for this aspect of human development

>>17411355
It’s not even a leftist thing. Every single ideological movement breeds more chaos, because the ideologies we have are all fundamentally the same. They all view life like game of checkers.

>>17411745
sure but leftist beliefs basically rely on magic farie dust and the power of friendship to magically hold society together and put food on the table whereas more authoritarian ideologies at least acknowledge the need for authority to hold things together, which is why every leftist movement inevitably defaults to authoritarianism when it becomes clear that reality can never function as it should in the theory

>>17410892
Ah yes, because upstart entrepreneurs can compete against a literally rigged system and beat the established power centers who actively work together to maintain their hegemonic power. Because muh free market or something.

>>17410184
>it wasn't real capitalism!!
Yawn.

>>17410184
he is absolutely right

>>17411301
We’re the same in that we are perfectly malleable is my argument. Evidence abounds to this being the case.

>>17411355
They will act in many different ways in freedom, but it is unlikely that we will have a hegemony of reform into a state again. We’ve had centuries of it and it failed. If we do not get rid of these systems soon they will kill us and many other species off for-fucking-ever.
The key is in the currency. Non accumulative will eliminate income inequality and organization will lead to justifiable hierarchies. The majority in each neighborhood DD won’t ever become a militarized state. Even small gun clubs of mad men would peter out to nothing in time. The majority don’t want to live in fear or impose fear on others. “Utopia” can come of this.
>second paragraph
It isn’t insane though. People used to live in close knit communities all the time. It’s a natural state of things. What’s massive is everyone claiming this lifestyle again. There was massive resistance against industrialization. We could welcome it back.
Show how it will transform i to something odious

>>17411700
What I propose is giving the controls to us all. It becomes easier. This is not how animals work. You don’t get any of this. Not educating people is what they did in the past. It “worked” as planned. Every time it was for a church or a state.
>There is no way to resolve this conflict
Because you will be sitting out the meetings. That’s your choice

>>17411393
Pardon?

>>17411935
Hahaha

>>17410184
Hayek was right.

The free market is by far the best system with have.

>>17412111
>Non accumulative will eliminate income inequality
You will never ever get rid of inequality. Stop trying.

>>17412125
>you can never make everyone same!
Amazing how you people never understand this simple word

>>17410184

>Claiming it's not real capitalism ad nauseam

lmao Mises and Hayek are batshit insane. At least Friedman had the decency to acknowledge he was just defending rich people. Incredible how economists are the sole of the "mathematically inclined" people who keep citing and drooling over stupid seminal texts without meaningful statistical theory.

"If god (government) didn't exist, we (corporations) would invent it"

>>17412119
>Hayek was right.
Hayek was a reactionary idiot. Government spending doesn't automatically mean fascism and serfdom for it's citizens, and saying such should automatically destroy every last bit of credibility you might have.

>>17412141
You will never get rid of inequality. Stop trying, it's harmful.

>>17412154
>everything will always be the same
go jump in a sewer

>>17412157
Inequality is nature. You are not even equal to yourself on different days, how do you propose we eradicate inequality?

Imbeciles.

>>17412111
> if everyone works together we can put the genie back in the bottle!

see your own post here >>17411281
>You believe we’re all robots with a preset program, and that we’re all the same.

the idea that humanity will just break up into tiny harmonious micro communities simultaneously and there wont be any meaningful resistance from both some of these communities and other larger communities that dont break up because "everyone will react exactly like i say they will" is so far beyond insane that i genuinely do not comprehend how you can hold these beliefs unironically

>>17412150
>Government spending doesn't automatically mean fascism
It does. Taxation is theft.

>>17412125
>Minimum wage in 1970: $1.60
>Minimum wage in 2021: $7.25
Accounting for inflation, minimum wage has declined 32.5% in the past 51 years. This means, despite the most concentrated technological revolution in human history, those at the bottom of the work distribution are much worse off. The benefits of modern society are being monopolized by the wealthy who are actively depriving the working poor of money

>>17412173
Property is only valid if recognized by a just authority, otherwise it is arbitrated by pure power. This authority takes on the responsibility of using power to protect your property rights. Taxation is not theft, it's a fee for services that have already been rendered to you. If you wish to end these services, you are free to leave the domain of the country.

>Free market
>GameStop
Pick one

>>17412111
> it failed
[citation needed]

>>17412165
We’d kind of still be right next to each other and still connected in all sorts of ways. “Other larger communities” like what a community of about 8000 versus the usual 4000? I doubt we’d get amphitheaters bigger than that.
The community of DC/Pentagon/state department are going to resist, yes, I know. But what money are they going to use now that the dollar is about to implode? They have a ton of weapons and cuck squads of course, so this is going to be a fight because of their insanity. Cancers do this sort of thing.

Everyone can react they way I say they can. They will if they know what’s good for them

>>17412248
Hmm?

>>17412164
THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE REFERRING TO

>>17410184
Did Hayek ever get any quality pussy?

>>17412356
he bought some escorts

>>17412317
>it wasn't real inequality
never change retards

>>17412317
>“Other larger communities” like what a community of about 8000 versus the usual 4000?
no i mean like 8000 vs 300 000 000 or god forbid 1 500 000 000

>Everyone can react they way I say they can. They will if they know what’s good for them
kek well im happy you can agree that your argument is nonexistent. they can but they wont. people are not the same. huge quantities of people are going to react differently not only in the initial moments but down in the timeline, even in areas where your ideology is successful change will rear its head inevitably. your entire belief system is built on a virtually nonexistent foundation and you actually think its moral or valid for you to insist that people risk destroying their lives and families to roll the dice on it

>>17412557
>300 000 000 or god forbid 1 500 000 000
How the hell would they organize? And. What would they organize? Prisons for the majority of the world? Genocide?
> your argument is nonexistent
Stirner’s argument does in fact exist
Herod’s argument does indeed exist
On and on. The current model does not work for us. The replacement is going to have to. You’ll root for the old killing machine I’m sure.

>>17410184
Exactly. He even warns us of what’s happening now in the United States

>>17410193
He gives solid examples of why anything other than the free market is asinine. United States doesn’t have the free market that he talks about because they fucked up and didn’t heed his warnings

>>17410478
No he doesn’t. He even says that you need some government regulation. Read the book