Why is this board full of commies?
If I sell my house to an "undocumented" worker, or hire one for a task... it's my prerogative, not yours. Only Communists/Statists would contend that property is communal and they can overrule my rights as an individual.
I'd respect a commie who's in favor of closed borders more than I would an ancap cuck who doesn't believe in borders at all.
Your economic decisions effect people outside of your agency therefor it would be not just moral but also within your self-interest to allow for social contract to be formed within society.
Ancap is bourgeois, Jewish, rootless, cosmopolitan tier logic.
even though their arguments are trash, they are trying
they are trying because they are being paid by billionaires to appear bigger than they are since that's all they can do since there's no upvote system here
All capitalism devolves into that unfortunately. Freedom of markets makes us all moral relativists.
Unless you own a business that is required to doccument workers, you are free to hire whomever you please so long as it is in line with local codes. You can sell your home to whomever so long as they have the proper papers. Nothing is stopping you from doing that.
The funny thing is that communists and ancaps both believe in the same form of government.
They're just too stupid to understand why that is.
Socialist Market Economics have solved the pricing mechanism problem, and the People's Democratic Dictatorship appears to be constraining bourgeois culture, and the degenerating impulses of capital interests. It also helps that Jews don't run the entertainment industry. I continue to watch with interest.
There are ideological,moral and philosophical differences in addition to the format of idealism.
...
Hold up, you are not one of those Dengist revisionists, right?
Yea but those are differences in the MEMBERS who live under the non-government.
There can't actually be said to be a philosophical underpinning to a non-government.
If I become a commie can I continue to be a manager? Or am I going to be demoted with the rest of the niggers who don't know the first thing about administration?
how so?
a mutually beneficial arrangement between two parties is no one else's concern but the parties concerned unless NAP violations occur
Only reason why you would be replaced should have its basis on merit or loyalty to the party.
The Labor Theory of Value proved empirically to not function as a functional pricing mechanism. It doesn't mean the LToV is wrong, only that is cannot be used to determine the price of a good. Marxian-Hegelian thought is dialectic and materialist ie. empirical. Marxism is not a religion with articles of faith. It's a science is history. Marx isn't a prophet or saint. He's a theorist. Communism is not possible without saturating the system with so much wealth that it breaks the current economic paradigm. Post or near-post scarcity = Communism. Market economics must exhaust its creative potential to get us there. But you need the People's Democratic Dictatorship to prevent capitalism from destroying socialism, and eventually destroying the country like we're seeing in the west. You can't skip the primary stage of socialism--the USSR and mid-century PRC proved that empirically.
What does the party stand for?
Forcing social conditions onto others without their consent trough such dualistic treaties is not just immoral but creates less stable society. This is the reason why markets always operate under one format of monopoly of violence, be it gangsters,the state or something else.
It is a constant subject of debate but generally the collective self-improvement of people(guaranteed employment,educational opportunities and social safety net that includes healthcare) security of the state apparatus and cutting off form outside influences. Sometimes(in most of the cases) we are trying to build monoculture.
While I agree with most of your points, I simply cannot see that market socialism could function to provide the same level of social safety as planned economies have potential for.
>It is a constant subject of debate but generally the collective self-improvement of people(guaranteed employment,educational opportunities and social safety net that includes healthcare) security of the state apparatus and cutting off form outside influences. Sometimes(in most of the cases) we are trying to build monoculture.
I take it you're a ML as opposed to an anarchist? Also define monoculture.
prohibiting people from signing contracts and volunteering their time for fruitful endeavors is the height of immorality and pure folly in practical terms
It leads to a complete lack of production of essential goods, famine and death.
I do feel more aligned with ML`s but not quite so dogmatically.
Monoculture is the opposite of multiculture, society of singular culture that is clearly dominant in that society/state.
They should be free to do so long as it does not violate the social contract nor the state apparatus.
A lot pf people rightly point out that private property + no welfare state would be a vastly different environement than having a welfare state and letting people in.
It's nonsense though, you don't have to choose between open & closed borders at this point in time, its a false dichotomy if i've ever seen one. The current system in a lot of countries works very well but could use some tweaks.
> Private property
> No state controlled areas
> = no borders at all
That's not exactly how it works friend.
Would you argue that an ethnocentric monoculture is compatible with socialism? Ethnocentrism/tribalism in general is a very good way of organization, but I'm aware there's a marxist current that's actively against that ('No black power, no white power, just worker power!').
Why is offloading the cost of your slaves to the commons supposed to be propertarian? Yeah, we all get that if public services were to disappear and you brought in a thousand squatamalans to your labor camp by air there would be no property-related reasons to stop you, but the fact public corporations bring in millions of laborers to enjoy the public tit and vote in public elections brings that equation of property rights to ruin.
Until you demolish the forcible distribution of everyone else' income to new arrivals, you cannot make an individualist argument for free immigration. It's really that simple. Even NAPfaggots have got this figured out. Why not you?
Get fucked shill
>sage
the state should stay out of it unless the mutually beneficial contract presents a clear and present threat to a third party
I suppose my question is, what is the basis of that singular culture? Is it based only on communism? Or is it based on the spiritual and historical culture of a people within a given area? Or a combination of the two? Also, what is your opinion on national syndicalism, Strasserism and worker oriented fascism?
> so long as it does not violate the social contract nor the state apparatus
Yeah but why though? Why worship the state? The social contract is a justifcation (pretty shit one) for state power & right to rule among other excuses used, the only thing really on trial is the state, why do you think the social contract justifies its immorality & actions? Out of necessity?
According to the U.S. constitution, the prerogative belongs to us, the people.
We absolutely can and will restrict your individual rights, and will even throw you in pound your ass federal penitentiary if necessary, to insure that you do no damage to the commonwealth.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
Closed borders is nationalist.
Communism is globalist.
individuals decide.. who to let in, who works for them, who purchases their goods, etc.. not the State.
If you can convince everyone in your community (fat chance, as most people aren't pol-tier autists) to boycott productive people from a different side of an imaginary line, then all the power to you.
except the whole communal property thing, eh?
you have no right to dictate to private property owners what he can do with it.
The people? as in the commune?
Get the fuck out you fucking communist shill.
My right to hire whomever I please is unlimited provided we mutually agree on the terms.
> Closed borders is nationalist.
> Communism is globalist.
Ahh so that's the difference between Stalin & Hitler. kek, good one.
Individuals will let anyone in who is willing to work their land for the cheapest/has the least amount of self respect. You're literally going to get the most shit tier of people in an ancap society. Fuck individuals.
It seems unrealistic considering that vast majority of human population belongs to separate ethnic groups unless it would be organized as a federal state, I don`t see this happening.
I also think that singular culture with one language would make up the most coherent society. Too much autonomy on the matter would be harmful.
>I suppose my question is, what is the basis of that singular culture? Is it based only on communism? Or is it based on the spiritual and historical culture of a people within a given area? Or a combination of the two?
I think that we should follow the historic examples of Soviet Union and China in this matter and attempt to "russify" the minorities underneath singular culture. This culture should be picked on the representative country`s majority for the sake of the convince to state.
>also, what is your opinion on national syndicalism, Strasserism and worker oriented fascism?
National syndicalism vs. syndicalism is really just question of organization(federation vs. confederation of syndicates based on national origin) and I don`t think that their brand of ideology would be effective in sate building nor organization in general due to lack of authority.
Strasserism is good on paper but it failures lie in its too large basing on ethnicity allowing opportunists like Hitler to take over and trash the movement for rest of written history.
worker oriented fascism and fascism in general on the other hand have many good points and I think that in modern synthesis of ideology a period of fascism in transaction form socialism to communism might be necessarily as state would have to build the fascist corporations/communes up anyhow.
people willing to work hard = shit-tier people?
in what universe?
This. I respect Hoppe a lot for this.
Lots of people work hard but they're still shit tier people with a bad attitude because they're getting paid shit wages. You can work hard and still be a liability to whatever company you're working for. Hell it doesn't even have to be a company, it can be an organization in general.
>to provide the same level of social safety as planned economies have potential for.
Planned economies have zero potential for social safety because social safety requires wealth. If you're truly a materialist, then you have to accept that social conditions are determined by material circumstances. The problem with western Marxists is that almost all of them have given up on materialism, and embraced post-modern thought, which is decidedly anti-materialist as it denies all prior and new data on sex, race, and yes, economics. Post-modernism is magical thinking and hypermoralistic nihilism. It doesn't matter if that's a contradiction. Insanity has no consistency.
The potential for social safety is limited by the wealth of the system. If the system produces no wealth, there is no social safety. Markets produce wealth. They also destroy the nation and the state, which means there is no potential for social safety.
That's why the solution that the Chinese theorist arrived at was a socialist market economy. Maybe it will fail, maybe it won't. Either way, we'll have an empirical answer to the question.
> Individuals will let anyone in who is willing to work their land for the cheapest
I don't think that's how the employment process works, you're thinking too much around factories & corporations with unskilled work mate. Which even then competition showed us 70 years+ of ever increasing incomes & employment conditions which produced some hardy people.
>Ancaps regarding law and order
I'd rather shitpost with a Communist. At least they are good for a laugh.
Commies are Borg. They're sub-human, collectivist ants with no minds.
>I think that we should follow the historic examples of Soviet Union and China in this matter and attempt to "russify" the minorities underneath singular culture. This culture should be picked on the representative country`s majority for the sake of the convince to state.
Do you really think you can assimilate certain peoples into the national culture though?
Blacks have been incapable of assimilating into American culture for generations.
>inb4 slaves and oppression
They've had at least 3 generations to assimilate. There's plenty of mexicans who are fully assimilated by the third generation.
>National syndicalism vs. syndicalism is really just question of organization(federation vs. confederation of syndicates based on national origin) and I don`t think that their brand of ideology would be effective in sate building nor organization in general due to lack of authority.
Well, Strasser was basically an authoritarian confederalist. I can't speak as much for the Falange but as far as I know they were also pretty authoritarian and believed heavily in cooperatives.
>Strasserism is good on paper but it failures lie in its too large basing on ethnicity allowing opportunists like Hitler to take over and trash the movement for rest of written history.
Strasser wasn't really a racialist. You should check out Germany tomorrow.
>worker oriented fascism and fascism in general on the other hand have many good points and I think that in modern synthesis of ideology a period of fascism in transaction form socialism to communism might be necessarily as state would have to build the fascist corporations/communes up anyhow.
I'm glad you're at least using corporation in the proper sense. While I wouldn't call them "communes" necessarily, they're not that far off considering they're guilds of tradesmen.
Wealth is rendered irrelevant in a closed markets, if state has self-sufficiency to build form but otherwise market socialism is the only solution. Even you could be less ideologically geared when it comes to explaining why planned economy in 21st century came to halt. It had to do with social reforms.
I think you're tying people's current wages to their work ethic a bit too much.
>my house
What makes it "your house"?
Some people cant ever stop trolling, basiclly taking to no side and shit posting all day chan has a problem atm
I don`t think that race is an issue if the sample size is small enough and unable to reproduce without mixing themselves into majority, thus vanishing.
Just because the commies closed their borders to stop their citizens from leaving doesn't mean you draw parallels between communism and controlling immigration.
The service industry works that way far more than industry in the modern age. Why do you think it is that when you buy a hamburger you're served by niggers who treat you rudely and never get your order right? The fact is, if they get 85 out of 100 orders correct they're worth keeping around to most corporations because it's cheaper to keep them employed as opposed to hiring a new employee and waiting to fill that labor gap left behind by the nigger you recently fired. When you have a labor gap you lose business because people don't want to come to your restaurant due to long lines and increased wait time.
You have zero brain function, homo. It's like saying it's your business if you want to hire someone who's serving life in state prison to mow your grass. He's not allowed to leave the prison because laws.
His ownership claim.
His objective link to the thing being claimed.
I'm not. When people aren't paid properly, they aren't as willing to show up to work and they do sub-par work when they're there. I've seen it in my own work place.
What about somewhere like America where they make up a good proportion of the population?
Fuck you. You undermine the very economic system and put yourself and everyone at risk jack ass just for profit and gain. Are you sure your not a fucking jew?
God giving men the legitimate exclusion of other people to things they have made their property.
So God.
>hurr i should be able to do whatever i want because le NAP muh individual rights muh private business
nah fuck off, wont even argue with you, simply fuck off cunt
Fuck off you utilitarian wack-job. Grow a principled spine or rot in hell.
>Why is this board full of commies?
Because we're infiltrated with faggot leftists who think they can "turn" us.
>Only Communists/Statists would contend that property is communal and they can overrule my rights as an individual
Only edgy teen lolbertarians and ancap faggots actually believe this. Which one are you?
>tfw a fucking commie is more reasonable than an ancap autist
Every marxist should be removed, but ancaps only serve as enablers for them.
>Wealth is rendered irrelevant in a closed markets
Planned economics couldn't even efficiently distribute FOOD. Food is the most fundamental and basic unit of wealth. Closed/open is irrelevant to the question of having food, and a pricing mechanism to accurately and efficiently distribute the ONE good that makes the production of any and all other goods possible. What too many Marxists really want is an order input/output android population of machines that don't require food or growth potential demanded by all biological lifeforms. Maybe that would be great, and the party leaders could sit back and gloat about having solved economics by eliminating humanity. Well, there is no New Man and there never will be--again a MATERIAL fact of the universe that must be assimilated into a Marxist understanding of the world. We are dealing with human systems, and the measures necessary to control a human system with inefficient allocation of resources creates feedback loops that collapse the system (see: USSR).
I'm just glad I won't have to have these debates in the future because western Marxists will be too busy trying to survive their race wars to have political discussions.
It's because the Reds are losing everywhere. They fail on Youtube, losing the culture war, get their ass kicked on the street. So, they are desperate to attack the leading space for Right Wing thought, Sup Forums. But not to worry, Reds are stupid and lazy, they won't last long here.
MLs/Tankies are usually alright. It's usually the anarchists who are the liberal social justice types.
Lefty Sup Forums are idiots that don't understand logic and only come here to shitposting.
Why would you ever endorse social contract nonsense? Have you really examined SCT?
Looks like a post it note being pulled up from the bottom right corner
>open borders
>wellfare state
Pick one ans only one you fucking libcuck shill
(You) get a helicopter ride as well worm
Ignoring jobs based on sales where companies will look for good customer service & good performance? Bonuses for good reviews & meeting KPIs? People a lot of the time do look for cheap people but you're making a pretty big sweeping generalization there that has a lot of examples to the contrary. Cheap people aren't even that bad a lot of the time when there's an open market for employers to enter & bid up wages for the harder workers.
>t. international socialist.
>If I sell my house to an "undocumented" worker, or hire one for a task... it's my prerogative, not yours.
If a worker of any background wants to work for you and you hire them that's fine with no further inspection. The problems come in though when you deal with the fact that capitalism creates a class where work is mandatory for survival and thus coercion is inherently involved in the interaction and is not voluntary. The poorest will be afflicted with job lock, that is needing to stay with a certain employer to maintain a standard of living rather than being able to find alternatives. And I like that you assume you'd be the one hiring people which makes your flag selection understandable.
It depends on the economy. In a good economy, there's a slim labor market because everyone is employed, therefore you get more niggers in the service industry. When things are shit everyone is looking for a job and you might get decent people. With that said, even in a good economy, people working those jobs will be looking for something better unless they know for a fact they can move up within a particular organization. If they know they're working a dead end job they'll have a shit work ethic.
True. I think people at the bottom might step up due to threats of automation & other incentives but I think I was just triggered when you said "individuals" and it came across as a generalization that every single person who ever employs just goes for cheap bogans/negroes. I get what you mean.
Service economies come about because production is increasingly efficient, and thus less people are needed and more people have money with which to spend on services.
Really, really basic and intuitive.
Nice. Why the flag?
>my rights as an individual
lol individuals have no rights whatsoever. There is no such thing as an "individual". Spend a few months, hell even a few weeks, in solitary confinement then tell me what you think about your self-concept as an individual, if you can even reason at all and haven't gone looney, that is.
If you're locked in a box by yourself for a long time, you go mad. If a baby never has a parent to attach to, if it is just put in a solitary cage after birth, even if there's food and water there, it just dies.
Your mind is not merely locked inside your head, it extends into your body, and even the world itself, especially the social field. You can store memories in your brain, and also on some sheets of paper, and even in other people: "Hey you, remember I need to be somewhere in an hour, wake me up from my nap, etc".
Cognition is UNIVERSAL, you are more like a monitor for universal cognition and not an isolated individualized atomistic computer. There are no human individuals, there are races, families, and the occasional alienated people. The closest thing to your concept of an individual is a schizophrenic, or a slave drug away from his homeland at a young age and forced to labor in a place where he doesn't know the language.
Because there's no regular 'A' flag and I don't believe that anything remotely resembling rights actually exists - Ancap implies rights.
If you read this stupid commie flag, it reads as simple "anarchist", which is accurate of my beliefs. Blame the mods.
Fair enough. Can you recommend me a good book mate?
Education: Free and Compulsory by Rothbard.
If you like to crush people's absurd notions about public schooling and government mandating "education", that's the best book out there.
Ah cheers, I've read some Rothbard but didn't even think of that one.
Fuck you Jew. We fight for our country and we don't expect to have slaves take all the jobs so that you Jews can enjoy the irony of reversing the story of exodus.
Ancaps really are retarded
>we fight for our country
You don't even know your neighbors, let alone a fraction of a fraction of the people in your town or county. And you don't care about them. And they don't care about you.
Ebin larp leftypol
Really made me think about retarded commieshit
Now kill yourself
>ancaps
>communists
>morals
you wot m8?
are you even ancap?
>Reading this thread
Newfags might not know this but the word "statist" was used as a serious insult back in the days of old Sup Forums. If one thing that came out positive from refugee crisis is the death of libertarian-ancap ideology that was gaining ground. Hurr durr statist statist freemarket, I can hire whomever I want retardation has become much unpopular.
>I can hire whoever I want
If I want to hire Bob to remove a septic tank, and you're gonna bitch whine and threaten me for offering him money to deal with that literal shit, you can go fuck yourself you absurd immoral faggot.
Distrust of the state is reaching new peaks, people run to it in the end out of fear & normality but we are slowly winning and I'm over the moon. Freedom will have many more opportunities to grow soon. I hope your children appreciate the world we build together.
so you're mean like, a socialist, who's also a nationalist? You could maybe call them... national socialists
See Dismantling the welfare state is a prerequisite to opening the borders. You would have to be retarded not to see this, and a neoliberal hiding behind black and yellow to see it and not care.
you're the newfag here.
Sup Forums will always be a libertarian board.
What if Bob isn't licensed and not properly equipped to do the job right? What if Bob isn't insured and gets hurt on the job? What if Bob does the job wrong?
The thing that anarchism gets wrong is that it assumes humans are rational, moral agents.
They're neither. They're stupid. They lack foresight, and they're interested in breaking the rules if it gives them a quick advantage.
What's more, most people will only act against a rule breaker if the rule breaker is directly harming them... .otherwise they will let someone else handle it.
> They're neither. They're stupid. They lack foresight, and they're interested in breaking the rules if it gives them a quick advantage.
True people go down the path of least resistence, which is exactly what forced personal responsbility was, resistence which made it better to do "the right thing".
> assumes humans are rational
Without going into the usual "if humans are irrational how the fuck can you trust them with the power of a state", what is rational exactly? Is it just having a high IQ & taking long term benefit over short term 100% of the time? That doesn't seem right.
>which is exactly what forced personal responsbility was, resistence which made it better to do "the right thing".
Whatever the consequences are, if they're sufficiently far in the future, many people won't see them at all. They cannot evaluate that far ahead. Even if it's like "50/50 shot this will work out"... Many people will just assume they're going to win the 50 50 shot.
Then, when they don't win... they will get desperate and form an army and kill people.
>what is rational exactly?
When I say rational, i mean that they can think in their heads about a plan of action, understand the potential consequences of their choices and making an informed choice on how to behave. Most people just follow their feelings without thinking too much.
Aren't I the judge of whether I want to pay someone to do something to my own property or not? Isn't Bob responsible for his own injuries unless there's some absurd oversight on my part like forgetting to tell him there are landmines in my yard? Isn't it MY problem if Bob fucks up, and a possibility I risk when I hire Bob or literally anyone else to do ANYTHING?
Fair enough. No use splitting hairs and being overly technical I'd like to see people being more rational as you describe it as well.