3 people end up on a remote deserted island

>3 people end up on a remote deserted island
>person A spends 8 hours cathing fish, manages to catch 2 fish
>B and C vote to strip him of his fish and each take one of his fish and eat it
>somehow, according to statist intellectuals, this is not theft

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2011/12/teddy-roosevelts-attack-excessive-concentration-wealth
youtube.com/watch?v=NF5rydcKats
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

There's nothing stopping A from killing B and C in the night, whereas B and C can't survive without A.

Not an argument.

>3 people end up in the desert, with one breaking his spine as he felt from the desert while one was an escaped rapist.
Who wants to see this survival show?

>present a zero sum game
>this is what the state does

Ok

Do you even know what money is, how it is made and why it has value?

Also, you didn't invent the fishing rod, you didn't create the lake or the fish, you didn't make the roads, nor invent the car used to transport the fish.

Your actual contribution is minimal. Stop thinking so highly of yourself, you can leave out a little bit of your money to help society through taxes.

New York, California and Texas support the entire country while places like the South and the Midwest are drains. According to your logic, this is theft

>theft is ok because you're not a genius scientist who invented everything

That sounds more like communism.

And despite the 1st person having all the skills and manage to survive by himself, therefore more capable and intelligent, gets killed by person B and C. Which are parasites
But history will remember them as survivors and great human beings..

/thread

>Person A spends 8 hours and catches 3 fish
>Person B and C do nothing
>Person A gives B and C a fish each in exchange for doing 8 hours each of fishing
>Persons B and C catch a total for 6 fish and give them to person A
>Government steals 3 of the fish, eats 2 of them then cuts one in half and gives half each to persons B and C
>Government notices that Person A didn't hire Person D, who identifies as a native
>Government steals 3 remaining fish, eat 2 and give Person D the last one
>Person A can't afford to pay anyone to fish and decides to just fish for himself
>Persons B and C complain to the Government and Person A must now give every 2nd and 3rd fish be catches to Persons B and C
>Person A spends himself
>everyone else starves

Thanks government

Nice one m8. You just described France.

He just described democracy my man

Democracy when there are so much parasites in the country that the government enforces forced equality instead of equality of opportunity

its not really like that
its more like person a b and c live in a village under a chief who decides that everybody must give a portion of the fish they catch so that the people who arent able to catch fish can eat a little bit. the fishers still have enough fish to survive, and the people who cant fish are left to grease the mcdonalds.

More like person C knows they won't starve thanks to the chief so they choose not to learn or try to fish

Isn't this that Swiss army man movie?

they would be shitty at fishing anyway, so they usually end up working shit jobs
thankfully the chief makes them work if they are able to. you cant afford a house or get on section 8 if you dont work. if you dont have a house, you will be homeless, which makes it difficult to feed yourself every day. thats incentive, and while we wont let our homeless starve to death we also wont make life as a mooch comfortable. its designed to help anyone who is able to work become a productive member of society. as for our fellow villagers who can niether stand nor fish, should they be allowed to starve?

Basically this is the welfare state and white male taxpayers.

So many are just opting out and eventually the bubble will pop.

>taxes are 100%

okay, lol

What's bugging me about this is his head is like 1/6th the size of the entire fucking crane. God this image really could have been made better, I'm fucking triggered.

>white male taxpayers

Jesus christ dude pull your head out of your ass.

So? I pay almost 50% Taxes due to my income in the real world. What ever happened to medieval 10% flat? At this point, I may as well pay 100% in return for state handouts.

Was speaking about the french model. Obviously life is not as easy for leeches in the US as it is in France. Here, illegals or people that flat out refuse to work still get free healthcare, as in total coverage. It's more than those who work. I'm not against social security per se, but it was supposed to be a safety net for those that are unlucky in life, not a way of life for people who don't want to participate. That should answer your question about people unable to work.

So, according to your logic, a little rape, not a complete rape, is acceptable?

What a cute little babby you are.

>3 people end up on a remote desert island
>Person B and C spend the entire day constructing a shelter and collecting drinkable water
>They ask person A if he could share some of the fish he spent his day catching
>Person A gladly shares his fish in exchange for using B and C's shelter and drinking water
>According to anarchists this is the worst thing possible

What everyone seems to fail to understand is, there is no "right", or "wrong". There is only force. If you have force, you decide what right is. No matter what bullshit people try to spin about "rights" and "equality", its all just meaningless words without force to back them up. The government has force behind it, therefore they can steal all they want.

>minorities
>relevant taxation rather than over-represented welfare

are you having a laugh ausposter

You're an idiot.

You could see "right" or "wrong" by analyzing the behaviors that allowed humans to survive and proposer as societes. One might even argue that some of those behaviors are instinctive, having been ingrained is us as an evolutionary advantage. For example, most people see killing other people from the same tribe as bad, even without being told so. Am I making sense?

taxes are not 100% and the states gives you stuff back

>roads
>education
>protection
>courts etc...

Yes I understand that ultimately taxes are forced on people without a choice as to pay

But there will ALWAYS be a government of some kind in force, even in Somalia you have your local warlord, who I am sure charges a tax

Government unfortunately is not optional in the real world

given that a democracy with protected rights and where you get a say in the outcome is the best you can hope for

ya we get it, you don't need roads where you're going

>Here, illegals or people that flat out refuse to work still get free healthcare, as in total coverage.

They get free healthcare here too. Not comprehensive coverage where regular visits are required but they do get it free. Here's how it works, they simply go to the emergency room for anything that bothers them. Hangnail, head wounds, gunshots. Whatever. They can't be turned away and the hospitals have no hope of collecting the fee. They usually just write it off as a loss and then up the price for those who can pay which causes insurance expenses to skyrocket while the hospital charges 200 dollars for an Aspirin. There are also clinics here where they only charged based on income so most people can get even dental for free because doctors volunteer to do it. Nobody ever talks about that for some reason.

What a brilliant rebuttal.
Off yourself commie.

A sounds retarded.

Takes the dumb nigger 8 hours to only catch two fish, can't protect himself from roving niggers and, he pronounces catching like cathing (total tard move)

Fuck A, team b nigga all the way

>t. person who has never gone fishing in his entire life

I present, some work by Irwin Schiff.

youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg

>t. shitty fisherman

I see you A.

After B steals yo' fish imma fuck yo' womanfolk and make you lick the cum out of their assholes u dumb nigger

>being this cucked
>not even sweden

>you can leave out a little bit of your money to help society through taxes.
and then some bernie tier faggot comes and tells you 99% tax is just a little bit

The fish sometimes bite and sometimes they don't.
You just learned something about the real world!

It's not 0 sum, you mongrel. B and C can gather their own fish(create their own value) and it doesn't affect A.

...

kek

fair enough. you could apply that to basic things such as "dont kill", but when it comes to more subtle things (such as theft), every society has its own rules for handling it. Spartan children being taught how to steal, for example.

My point was that while we may have a sense of what is right or wrong, ultimately, it is force that decides.

why do you keep posting this fake article in every thread.

Oh ok, that sucks too then. At least, If you manage to remove illegals the problem solves itself. There's some retarded law here that says that if treatment is not available for some illness in someone's country, said someone is to be authorized to stay in France and be treated for free. On top of AIDS medication, which is very expensive, do you know what medication is not available in shitty countries (if not outright forbidden)? Drug substitution. We have a shitload of foreign criminals in my city whose drugs are paid by the taxpayer. Trying to speak about these issues here is not advised. At least your country is a beacon of free speech.

its not fake and its hot to imagine this happening

The distinguishing feature of states as opposed to private enterprise is that they simply forcibly take from the populace and claim a monopoly on the use of aggression.
If you take away either of those aspects, you cease to have a state entirely.

why is the fish invisible inside the net?

In real life persons B and C are fishing 8 hours a day with the sticks you provided. You are paying them a minimum portion of the whole share keeping it all for yourself.

Stupid capitalist fucks hate statism, yet they run into mommy governments lap every time actual working people want to expropriate their wealth.

>3 people end up on a remote deserted island
>person A spends 8 hours 'cathing' fish, manages to catch 2 fish
>person B and C catches bush turkeys to breed and butcher, sharing together when the other doesn't do too badly
>person A refuses to share citing 'muh violence'
>person B gets sick for a week and C looks after him, vice versa.
>person A gets sick and dies

Cool man. Eat your cake, but then you can't have it i.e use anything society has built together.

"Society" doesn't own property.
People own property.
You can use your property however you like as long as you don't fuck with others. That's exactly the point.

>Person A spends 8 hours a day fishing without telling anyone he is doing so
>Person A does not put his fish in the coolers controlled by the Jews but instead secretly hangs the fish up in his basement to dry
>Person A has never had to share his fish with anyone because no one knows he has the fish
>Person A knows there is a risk of getting raided by the Internal Fish Revenue Service but Person A covers his tracks as best as possible

Conspiracy of evil imperialist capitalist bourgeoisie seeking to remove fish from the hard working proletariat.

kek I just shared this scenario with my gf
she said
>A should obviously share, how can he just watch B and C starve? This is what's wrong with humanity.
>What A should have done was give them a little fish so that they wouldn't commit organized theft. A is a dumbass. He should have hid his fish or something. Stupid A. He was asking for it.

fake article

also white cheerleaders generally don't have sex with non white football players.
Girls go to frat parties to get fucked instead.

t. went to FSU

>"Society" doesn't own property.
>People own property.
>society(people) doesn't own property

What the fuck do you think society means you dumb retard?

teehee, what is wonderful is that i agree with you both but you never sort your differences out.

Current governments provide more goods and services than medieval governments, you stupid nigger.

>Live in society
>Don't actually do anything
>Still get paid millions of dollars
>Get mad I have to pay taxes

I'm not certain theft is a suble as you make it, seeing how most people (except commies, but them being people is highly debatable) recognive private property. I'm pretty that without "300" spartans wouldn't be very famous nowadays.

Ultimately I thinhk you're right though. Those in charge tend to decide how a society evolves. What we mustn't forget is that the battle for what's right or wrong is not over. About theft I don't know, seeing how it can have a wide definition. A good example for today is usury. Apart from northern countries, it's mostly considered immoral.

>white cheerleaders generally don't have sex with non white football players
false statement its quite opposite actualy when i was in USA all of them were fucking black guys

People as in individuals.
You don't own a state highway. The only people who can even remotely exercise what remotely resembles property jurisdiction over state property are state goons. You don't own jack. Shit.

What is... a hedge fund manager?

You can't even say where "society" starts and "not-society" ends.
Nobody gives a shit about your mystical magical unicorn terms that don't actually mean anything that you nevertheless pretend all conclusions derive from.

Or a bank, or someone who lives off rents... Pretty sure there are plenty of other examples. I believe it revoles around the idea or "productive work" in marxism

nah, I'm not from the use originally but came here for highschool/college and am working here now.

None of the white cheerleaders in highschool fucked any of the black guys. Only the spanish and black ones did that. the white ones only fucked the white players but most fucked the guys on keyclub, tennis team, ect.

in college there was more white girls fucking black guys, but they were mostly the nasty whores that would have fucked a dog at party if drunk enough

you... don't believe in society? as in, you don't think society exists?

Sadly the list of stuff I want or use is drastically shorter than the billshit I don't care for, want or morally support.

I'm a logician.
Tell me how many people - and in what proximity those people have to be in - equals a society, and what super special magical conclusions derive from the sheer fact that x arbitrary number of people are in y arbitrary proximity to one another.

You're struggling for a reason.
A very important reason that you should mull over. Detach yourself from all the superstitious nonsubstantive popular nonsense that is talking as if the existence or lackthereof of "society" - whatever that is, since not a soul can define it - leads to any necessary conclusions *AT ALL* about *ANYTHING*.

>I'm a logician.
what do you mean by this? that you're a professional philosopher specializing in the field of logic?
>Tell me how many people - and in what proximity those people have to be in - equals a society
well, I don't think number+proximity of people is sufficient for a society without certain interrelations and activities, but either way your reasoning is the fallacy of the heap, isn't it? commits you to mereological atomism.

>Jesus christ dude pull your head out of your ass.

You next line is: I was only pretending to be retarded!

Yes that's what I mean.
No, that's not the crux of my reasoning - it's merely part of what I want accounted for, since it needs to explained *WHAT* "society" sustains in, and then - more importantly - why *ANY* conclusions about ought-like states of affairs derive from the instantiation of whatever it is you arbitrarily define as "society".

Because even if you came up with some definition, and we agreed for arguments sake that there were some society, then the question is then "So?"
Why does that matter? And from where do you derive the conclusion that it does?

how is your argument against the existence of society not a sorites fallacy?
regardless, why think a society is just an aggregate of people, disregarding eg their interrelations and activities?

Because that's not my argument. I want you to define something, and in philosophy there *IS* a desire for specificity in definitions and reasoning *ESPECIALLY* in anything relating to ethics, because anyone and their mother can spout off at the mouth about how x is right because of y without actually knowing *ANYTHING* substantive or specific about y, which is what I highly suspect you and virtually anyone else who invokes "things should be this way because muh society" of doing.

>why think a society is just an aggregate of people, disregarding eg their interrelations and activities
I don't - I don't believe in anything like society. Individuals do things. Categorizing certain degrees of some arbitrary number of individuals doing some things over others in some arbitrary proximity to one another has no pragmatic or propositional value in regard to *ANYTHING*.

My questions to you remain entirely unanswered.

>Because even if you came up with some definition, and we agreed for arguments sake that there were some society, then the question is then "So?"
>Why does that matter? And from where do you derive the conclusion that it does?

OP, just to answer your question, the fact is that if all 3 of them work (optimal situation) they have a better chance of survival.

If by giving them fish they can get out of whatever problematic situation they are in and become productive members of that society, you just paid 2 fish to get 2 workers.

maybe the existence of society has implications, maybe not, i haven't taken a stance on any of that
we haven't got anywhere near that far yet
>Because that's not my argument.
this is no response at all
I'm asking you to explain how your argument, which undeniably sounds very much like an instance of the sorites fallacy (to anyone who knows what that fallacy is), is not an instance of the sorites fallacy
you should be able to understand this question if you have any background in actual logic, the philosophical subdiscipline, which I highly doubt you do
I think when I asked you if you're a professional philosopher specializing in logic you did some creative interpretation on the words in your mind, like maybe you have a website that you make a bit of money on where you spout amateur political speculation, and you think of yourself as a super logical person, so you decided that was enough to answer yes

>Priests arguing theology about specific bible passages
>Fedora walks in
>"God doesn't exist you retards, here's how theology should go"

The non existence of society IS your argument since you're "invalidating" what everyone else is saying on that basis.

I haven't made an argument. I've asked for specificity.
What I said was - and I'll quote exactly what you started responding to -
>Tell me how many people - and in what proximity those people have to be in - equals a society, and what super special magical conclusions derive from the sheer fact that x arbitrary number of people are in y arbitrary proximity to one another
I asked you a question. It had no addendum of what conclusion would be derived on any kind of answer. It's not an argument. I want to know your response, which you gave (sort of)
>I don't think number+proximity of people is sufficient for a society without certain interrelations and activities

No argument was made until where I heavily imply (and here explicitly affirm) that I think any ethical argument that rests on some arcane concept of society is bullshit, in that you can't derive any moral conclusions from the sheer instantiation of "society" (however you define that).

yes, this is exactly how the world around you works

the amount of posters who don't understand that this is a thought experiment used to highlight basic moral principles and subsequently add additional circumstances and make-believe scenarios in order for the experiment to mirror "real life" is...actually, I'm not baffled, I always suspected 98% of Sup Forums posters to be

>7billion people on planet
>also on planet, enough money to support very many more than that at an equitable and nice standard
>fuck them, let's store money as electricity at the bank where it will go to good use making more electronic money
>somehow, according to some, this is ethical

Teddy Roosevelt's attack on excessive concentration of wealth
minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2011/12/teddy-roosevelts-attack-excessive-concentration-wealth

Roosevelt was garbage.
youtube.com/watch?v=NF5rydcKats

A should have stayed late to catch a 3rd fish.

>sensible_chuckle.gif

> A bribing B to guard him from C for 1 fish
> C dies as he is fucking retard who can't catch fish
> B is economically depended on A, he is As bitch now

Clearly those "statistic intellectuals" weren't person A.

>crane not made of brain
one fucking job

>walk down corridor with high ceiling
>pot falls from precipice at the top onto your head
>die
>"Heh I guess you weren't real bright xD"

what did he mean by this?

I like you.

Except were paying for a lot of leeches in society currently.

>Tell me how many people - and in what proximity those people have to be in - equals a society
this demand along with your suggestion that it can't be properly met amounts to an argument that society doesn't exist, which is a claim you explicitly made (and defended with the preceding)
it is also an argument that instantiates the sorites fallacy (look it up), and hence your acceptance of it commits you to mereological atomism (look it up)
stop saying you're a professional philosopher or logician when you don't even know these basic concepts and can't even tell when you're making an argument

> Person A trades fish for shelter from B and C

Where does the state analogy come in?

>he never read the sticky
Nu/pol/ must go

That's pretty flawed logic. It's more like all three people secure the island for human habitation, and all manage to some degree survive. Then person A, taking advantage of the stability, devises a drag net operation that nets him thousands of fish. Then person B and person C, who helped him make that drag net, each believe that they might deserve maybe a fish or two out of that arrangement. After all, person A has thousands of fish, most of which he will have to reinvest as bait to catch more fish, far more than he will personally need.

But wait, this is a thread where amateur Randian economists jerk each other off.

>amounts to an argument that society doesn't exist
No it doesn't. I made the remark that I currently have no compelling reason whatsoever to entertain the idea of some arcane undefined unsubstantive "society", but that doesn't make my question equate to an argument that society doesn't exist even in the slightest, and it's completely and obviously disingenuous to suggest it does because you want to advance a substanceless anonymous narrative on an inline imageboard.

I like how you refuse to engage the actual question though.
>Because even if you came up with some definition, and we agreed for arguments sake that there were some society, then the question is then "So?"
>Why does that matter? And from where do you derive the conclusion that it does?
I find that really funny.