Why is it horrible for a government to oppress people, but no biggie when a corporation does it.
Do lobertarians and ancaps have no concept of practical reality? You were born in a time when all the land is owned? Don't worry about it rent is voluntary.
I don't get clinging to an abstract, idealized system like a religion. Capitalism is not gods gift to mankind, its okay to reel it in from time to time.
What exactly is the difference between a large corporation and the government, again? Why do people shill so hard for corps? Are they just trolling or are they just all in high school?
They don't care about what is practical, they just see it as a fundamental right for humans to be fully entitled to their property. I'm not AnCap because it isn't appealing to me nor what I envision an ideal society to look like. Nonetheless economic competition (i.e. Capitalism) is good to the extent that it creates industry and improves quality of life. However, it should be intervened upon when it works against the interests of the nation, because it is a system that only exists because allowed by the nation.
Xavier Richardson
I consider myself to be fairly classically libertarian in a lot of my philosophy, and I see this mistake made by people a lot.
A corporation isn't an ancap/libertarian idea. A corporation is a state - just as the nation is a state - only on a smaller scale. If you wouldn't accept it of the government, you can't accept it of a corporation - and vice versa.
Jackson Jones
the answer, you asshat, is because you go to work voluntarily. if you live in a libertarian society and you want to live free in the woods, on a farm, in an agrarian life, outside of the economic system, you can do so. if you want to go work in the capitalistic social machine, you can do that. liberty is about freedom of choice, you faggot. not you commie pieces of shit who want to force YOUR way of life and YOUR subjective moral beliefs onto everyone else.
neck yourself, you little bitch
Leo Long
You're arguing with a caricature of libertarianism probably based on "Hoppean Libertarians", who are not libertarians, and ancaps, who are not libertarians. Maybe even Randians, who were only associated with libertarianism because of the Koch brothers and jumped ship with the Tea Party.
Libertarianism is a classical liberalism revival movement, user. Words mean things.
Colton Sullivan
>""""voluntarily"""" live in feudal society >monarch orders you to do x >"""""choose"""" not to >die
Living in the woods is not a viable """"""choice"""""" you brainlet. Your definition of voluntary is hilariously restricted to what works best for your corporate masters. I wonder why.
David Roberts
>guy threatens to dock pay if i don't pick up McCan(c) >do it anyway, give no fucks for pay cuts >i just go work for BurgerCan(c) who doesn't give a fuck if I drop a can
VS
>guy threatens to fine me for littering >do it anyway, don't give a fuck about fine and don't pay >attempt made to seize property. defend self and property. killed.
Of course ideally, while monopolies can be natural, government can't step in on behalf of monopolies either to protect it from competition.
Evan Reyes
whoa how is living in the woods not a viable "choice"? look this is why leftists are always the most insecure, weak and helpless among us. i'm sorry if you weren't born strong and independent. i'm sorry if you didn't have a good strong father figure to teach you how to do things. im sorry if you live in a shit urban environment where you feel that taking part in corporate america is your only choice in the world. but you should remember htat millions of people in this country, spread all across those red rural states that people like you seem to hate so much and treat with so much derision, as if they're so "below" you, actually live like that with no problem. out in the country people grow and hunt their own food, build and fix their own shit, they do everything for themselves. they don't want your shitty socialism because they aren't as helpless as you. all you're literally trying to do is oppress them and steal their shit so that you can have a better living situation without doing anything to better yourself
maybe you should reconsider which side is actually "cool" and "together" because its not the "hip urban trendy" side. they're the "fucking dumb and helpless" side
>calling me a brainlet yeah that really helps consider you probably wouldn't know even how ot change a flat tire, or your oil, much less make any sort of actual repair on a vehicle or anything else without taking it down to some capitalist garage because you and your entire culture is the product of forced indoctrination
Nicholas Fisher
>Corporate megafarms flood the market with cheap shit >ma and pa cant make no money no more >megafarm seizes small farm >rural retard decides to live in forst >gets shot for trespassing >that didnt work >does factory work for 14 hours a day to live >decides its shit goes to work for another company >same thing
But its okay because I can build a boat out of driftwood and live in international waters.
How's that corporate dick taste? Anything like uncle sams?
Joshua White
Government is involuntary. Choosing where to live, shop, work, eat, jack off, and whatever else is voluntary.
Adrian Nelson
the scenario you're talking about literally doesn't exist wtf? what "megafarm" is seizing a small farm? also we don't really live in a "libertarian" society bud. don't you know that back in the day, up until the 70s, you could literally walk out on any unowned piece of land and say "i claim this for myself" and you wouldn't have to pay for it, you just owned it, and you could do what you liked with it? it was called "homesteading". that's libertarianism. i'm sorry but the stuff you're talking about it just detached from reality and the parts that aren't detatched from reality are probably more due to cronyism than capitalism. if you guys devoted 1/10th of the energy towards ending corporate welfare, billion dollar subsidies, tax loopholes and stuff like that, as you do to trying to spread your authoritarian socialism, you could actually make the world a better place
Ian Johnson
Let's just ignore that corporations literally buy out politicians to push laws in their favor. With or without uncle sam, you're getting some form of corporare dicking. This is why there are so many regulations that make it an incredible pain in the ass for newbie entrepreneues to open a business.
So yes, you're technically right that corporations can and will take advantage if they have the opportunity. But the government doesn't protect you from that.
Alexander Powell
yeah guys like the OP of this thread are people who have never been in the real world. never been outside of a classroom or their moms basement. they never went and actually tried to open a business and saw how all of these regulations and lefty, big government rules that are all dressed up in rhetoric about "safety, and protecting the people" actually end up fucking us all over hardcore. even in a business as simple as a hotdog cart on a streetcorner, the permitting waits and limitations are INSANE. you end up on waiting lists for YEARS.
now take a guy like OP, frustrated, doesnt want to be a slave. something that like that would be really good for him. he could drop like 2K on a hotdog cart, go out, make his own hours, do his own thing, come home with a solid 50k+ income (prob closer to 100K if he finds a decent spot).
but he won't be able to. why not? because of his own shitty political wing and their anti-human agenda. he's too dumb and angry and ignorant and believing of them to understand how they've systematically fucked him over for his entire life
Alexander Martin
>what "megafarm" is seizing a small farm? walmart versus mom and pop shops, facebook versus other social media sites, etc. and you go talking about corporate welfare? lmao >not real capitalism
Cameron Martin
dude that's not "seizing". i don't think you know what "seizing" means, come on. and the cases you cite are exactly as i say. walmart and facebook both benefit from billions of dollars in government subsidies so you're only proving me right, not wrong >msnbc.com/msnbc/walmart-government-subsidies-study
Hudson Carter
What's wrong with facebook? I understand things like starbucks opening new shops and losing money intentionally to ruin business for a smaller coffee shop, but the internet isn't limited by location and quantity of products.
I think you missed the context in his post >>Corporate megafarms flood the market with cheap shit >>ma and pa cant make no money no more
pic related
Zachary Green
OP is 100% right. The government as we know it today is basically just a mouth piece for various corporations, most of whom operate through NPOs. This is why I gave up on Lolbertarianism. We need a new state I think, one where the government is re-founded on principles laid out in the modern day - real laws we can all abide by. Not this wishy washy post modern tyranny. Law must be applied equally and with equal restraint - and it will exist whether you like it or not; Libertarians themselves know the Law is violence. Well who do you want in control of that violence - those chosen to champion the People, or just the next string of Oligarchs? I think we all know where this conflict is headed.
David Hall
no bro i don't "miss" any points you and the OP have both tried to use deceptive language and say that big farms are "seizing" smaller ones when it's a patently flat out lie. you want to try to change the goalposts now that you've been called out whatever but don't expect anyone to fall for that
Kayden Perry
>voluntary What happens if you don't subject yourself to a corporation or privately owned business which rules you like a dictator? You starve. And no, before you suggest starting a business, everyone can't own a business and large parts of the economy are impossible to access because of high capital needed for entry (And muh magical free-market isn't going to magically fix this by simply get rid of muh gubmint regulations). States are at least accountable to people or can be made accountable if structured correctly. Businesses are not accountable to anyone, except to the owners. Inb4 they're accountable to customers! No, most businesses can do what they want and people will buy from them out of necessity.
Juan Foster
are you really going to get hung up on that one word? he's right, you can't just create a society based on voluntarism and fair competition and all the perfect libertarian ideals. monopolies, corruption, and unfairness are things we will always have to reckon with, libertarianism just moves the problem.
Benjamin Perry
OR
or
I could be making the point that there is no functional difference between a government stopping you from making a business via excessive regulation and a megacorp that can undercut you with (free!) shit till you go out of business or just outright buy the land you stand on.
Maybe to have a true free market and actual individual liberty, the power of some collective entities should be checked by other collective entities.
Not everyone you disagree with is a statist.
Jose Russell
Capitalism will always have a symbiotic relationship with the state. Unless the state guides it forcefully, like Hitler did. I'm not against private property, but private property should never trump the larger picture or he detrimental to the nation.
Wyatt Allen
the reason you need high capital for entry into business is because of big government lefties who pass regulations and approve corporate subsidies. that's not free market. that's not libertarianism. that's not right-wing. that's big government and it's actually, in the most literal sense, a form of socialism because it's wealth distribution.
also there are no privately owned businesses which rule us like dictators.
all of the posts disagreeing with me come from urban socialites who have lived their lives in this system and literally don't think anything outside of it exists because everytime they see large groups of people living outside of it they write them off as "rednecks", "hillbillies", "white trash" or some other derogative. maybe you should just reassess your values because you're literally just brainwashed indoctrinated slaves
look its not a semantic argument. i don't do that bullshit. but you claiming that businesses are "seizing" other businesses isn't a matter of "a word", it's a fucking flat out lie. period. it's just a flat out lie. there's nothing even remotely like that going on in reality. it's not "a word" its a fucking patently false statement that you knew was patently false when you made it
Jack Edwards
Capitalisms wanton lust for new sources of revenue has mined the human spirit dry. We live in an empty plastic world that people abide by because it is more comfortable than any alternative. Our governments are off the leash working against us, and who do you think their biggest friends are? Those who roll their capital down hill causing avelanches. Neither can be trusted any more. "Hitler" is the way forward.
Luke Martin
then your point's bunk because nobody can undercut you with free shit if they aren't getting subsidies and tax breaks from the government. if the playing field is equal then none of that can happen. you don't have an equal playing field right now because lefties love regulation and big government. they think government is the solution to everything. i don't know why the disaffected and the people who are concerned about slavery in our culture don't call out the real culprits, EVER, which is the special privileges and permissions granted by the state to big business (i can only assume its because these policies are championed by lefty politicians primarily).
your answer isnt socialism, or more legislation, or more government intervention, or more authoritarianism. it's restricting and stopping the entity that created this problem in the first place, which is government
Christian Butler
look just in case you genuinely don't know OP, essentially every one of these big corporations literally gets BILLIONS of dollars donated to them by state, federal and local governments, ok? does that sound "fair" to you? do you think that maybe if you're disaffected with the wealth inequality and human slavery problem then maybe you should start off with trying to end these unfair social policies? rather than drastically restructuring our economics and giving up on human freedom, all for the sake of placing more power and responsibility in the hands of the entity that created this problem to begin with (government)
in case you don't know, if you read any author from the frankfurt school, they literally planned this out. they planned to subvert capitalism and turn it into a nightmare from the inside out, just to make people disaffected with capitalism and make them want to turn to big government and socialism. you're kind of falling right into their trap, as have all of your lefty friends, which is why they get branded as "useful idiots"
Jayden Wright
the fuck do you mean you cant undercut with free shit?
You are telling me an established store front with dozens of locations cant take a loss in one location to completely shut down any local competition?
I suppose you think multiple corporations would not collude together to exterminate competition either?
You can't be that naive.
Jack Reyes
the funny thing is, the hardcore libertarians literally deny basic economics
go to the Mises website, it's almost all these vague philosophical statements and deconstructive arguments with nothing backing them up besides their a' priori assumptions.
you get the sense that these beliefs are not some kind of grand logical treatise, but a cultlike devotion to emotional arguments about freedom, even when it stops making any sense
Connor Williams
>the reason you need high capital for entry into business is because of big government lefties who pass regulations and approve corporate subsidies. that's not free market. that's not libertarianism. that's not right-wing. that's big government and it's actually, in the most literal sense, a form of socialism because it's wealth distribution. Absolute bullshit. Show me some evidence. I'm sick of you faggots getting a pass with this non-argument. Assuming it's true, at best it would lower costs a little bit in some cases. The majority of industries will still be out of access to most peoole. Do you seriously think most people will ever be able to start a ship freighter company or become a cpu manufacturer? No, don't be fucking retarded.
Also, it's entirely in the interest of capital to form a symbiotic relationship with a state. Capitalists have always formed this relationship historically and always will. The only two solutions are getting rid of the state or having a strong state that places national interest over capital interest. The former is a fairy tale, another state will form in time. The latter is a possibility that could work, though capitalists would hate it and would send the u.s. to destroy or sabotage any such state.
Ryder Gray
do you ever think, OP, that the reaosn you can't compete with big business and be free and independent and not a slave is because they're being propped up by the government?
that's why the right-wing says "LESS government is the answer" that's why we say "government is the PROBLEM". government is ALWAYS going to be corrupt, remember that
Levi Young
And these big corporations have less power in ancapistan... how exactly?
David Collins
Thank you. That argument is so fucking retarded I hate when they bring that one up.
Lucas Peterson
why don't you learn some economics?
Chase Roberts
And I am telling you that a large enough corporation IS a government. And you should hate it just as much as you hate the state.
Samuel Ross
yeah you actually can't and if you'd ever been in business you'd understand that the larger you get the more diminished returns you get. one simple reason for this is because people don't like to work as hard for money that's not their own. another is the difficulty in organizing and coordinating and all sorts of extra costs that pop up.
BUT in our society the bigger you get the more privileges you get. the more the government helps you out. so that's why we have this situation.
and everytime someone with experience like me tries to tell the truth to people like you, you just react in the same ignorant, angry way, like i pissed on your shoes but all i did was tell you the truth.
even if you go back and read adam smith in the wealth of nations, he LAUGHED at the idea that corporations would ever be a powerful social force because they've NEVER been able to succeed on their own. it was NEVER until governments began propping them up with subsidies and special privileges that they succeeded, and this is going all the way back to the east india company.
so you can sit and act like im the stupid and ignorant one but yes, what i'm saying is the truth and you are the one that is wrong
Isaac Cook
Ancaps are stuped. Libertarians demand a LIMITED government with basic functions like an army to protect the people from outsiders, lawmakers to make the rules inside and a police force to uphold the rules inside.
The basic notion is that if a business sucks, you can choose another business, that does a better job. And that may take time. But: Look at the picture! How does Walmart crush you personally? They don't. Don't like them? Go to costco or whole foods or where ever else you want to go to. Don't like JP Morgan? Put your money into your mattress. No one is forcing you to pay for their services.
What if it's the only business? If the business sucks and has no competition, competition will soon rise. Because if there are a lot of people, that would be happy with paying money for a better service, there will be someone soon who wants that money. There are next to no markets in which one company has a monopoly. Market shares of over 80% are extremely rare.
Jaxson Murphy
what does anarcho capitalism have to do with anything? also i don't know why you're asking this question when obviously in an anarcho capitalist society there wouldn't be any billion dollar subsidies to prop them up
Jaxson Moore
>are they just all in highschool Yes and like most teenagers they dont know shit about economics and how the real world works.
Jace Ross
Corporations cannot force you to give them your money. Government has a monopoly for power, and will resort to violence if you will stop paying it an extortion money in the form of taxes.
Juan Peterson
the thing you posted has nothing to do with my comment, it is no refutation of it, it's nothing. it's just saying "Well there are monopolies" yeah ok, there are monopolies and guess what, we have anti-trust laws. and guess what else? you wouldn't have any "monopolies" if the government wasn't creating them through subsidies and tax breaks so i can ask YOU why can't YOU just learn some economics?
then you're stupid for saying that. a corporation is not a government. it can't make any laws over you. it can't rule you. it can't tell you what to do.
we live in a sitaution today where because of big government corporations and governments have become linked. so now they're a complex. so in that sense our corporations today can almost kind of be seen as "government" and this is specifically because of "big government" that has the ability to grant them special permissions, contracts, tax loopholes, ect ect ect, but that's not even close to the same thing as what you're trying to say
Parker Reed
By the way, your 'free market' is a theoretical abstraction and has never existed in reality. Actually read some economic history. Lolbertarians and ancaps are naive rationalists, you think just because something is logically sound in your theoretical model that it will work out like in reality. Real world data shows you're wrong.
Landon Edwards
>you wouldn't have any "monopolies" if the government wasn't creating them through subsidies and tax breaks so i can ask YOU why can't YOU just learn some economics? this is completely wrong, and what I posted refutes it
Blake Kelly
The implication of "billion dollar subsidies" is that it gives corps more power than they should have.
My point is that a corporation in a society free from any significant government regulation would have so much power over the population that subsidies would not increase their influence significantly.
Aiden Martin
>we live in a sitaution today where because of big government corporations and governments have become linked. so now they're a complex. so in that sense our corporations today can almost kind of be seen as "government" and this is specifically because of "big government" that has the ability to grant them special permissions, contracts, tax loopholes, ect ect ect, but that's not even close to the same thing as what you're trying to say
This. It is very important to understand that we don't have a capitalistic economy. The world has gone the Third Way (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way) and its literally one of the worst things that could have happen and will lead to ever-increasing power of corporations-government cartels over people.
Jayden Campbell
P.s. Like communists, libertarians/ancaps miss the key ingredient: human nature.
Caleb Williams
Would you rather be controlled by a public nationalist entity that want's equality for it's own people and deportation of subhumans or be owned by a private corporation with an unknown personal agenda that enslaves you to make smart phones and will enact a superiority complex value above you even though you are white and not degenerate.
Isaac Rogers
A corporation absolutely can tell you what to do. It can pass de facto laws and it can rule over you. Unless you live in the woods (and who OWNS the woods btw? You sure as shit dont) you need food and shelter and the only way you get those things is by doing what corporations tell you to.
This, of course, is in a purely capitalist world. Thankfully we don't live in a 'capitalist' society so these kind of corporate tyranny isnt as obvious.
Doesn't stop lobertarians from wanting to trade the actual liberty of a socialized republic with the imaginary liberty of "true" capitalism.
Grayson Ross
this is just really empty talk. like really empty. there's just not even a shred of substance here for me to latch on to and have a real discussion about so you're essentially defending the government giving out billion dollar subsidies to all of these huge corporations? ok, now can you really not figure out how you're a useful idiot for the 1% that you people claim to hate so much? can you not figure out how you're a tool? you people are so full of shit you cry about "muh socialism muh socialism" and then when you see the government giving billions of dollars to the biggest corporations you DEFEND IT just because it's done by lefty politicians omfg im sorry, i want to be polite in this discussion but fucking neck yourself omfg the world will be better off without hypocritical people like you no you don't refute anything just by posting a theoretical definition of some lofty economic term. where is this "natural monopoly"? what business can't i get into? you don't have an example you can point to in our society because in our society all of the businesses with high costs of entree are made even HIGHER cost by corporate welfare, subsidies, ect ect ect ect. so you can't point to some theoretical term and say "this disproves you hur durrrr" when there's not even a concrete example in life that you can point to because our economy as it stands right now is so tightly controlled
Mason Sullivan
Should a people organize their national morality around what is good for the nation a whole or what make anational individuals?
Do you consider yourself more a part of a collective national identity or an individual resisting collective encroachment?
Cooper Lee
the thing people like you don't understand is that every corporation in history has failed in the absence of a government to prop it up. it's an impossible concept for the average person to get through their heads right now, at this point and time in history, that corporations naturally fail, because we see them as so powerful and ubiquitous. but the reality is that every time that corporations haven't been propped up by big government THEY FAIL and private entrepreneurs that are PROPRIETORS succeed over them because they're more personally invested, they're more nimble, usually they're more intelligent, and they're operation is on more of a scale that they can keep track of everything that is happening.
go back and read economics books from the 1700s. read wealth of nations by adam smith. there was no such thing as "corporate america" in the past unless there were subsidies and special privileges granted by governments to prop them up
this is the dirty secret of economics the 1% REALLY doesn't fucking want you to know. they can't live and exist and be your rulers if they don't have the government
Ryan Fisher
is your corporate master the u.s. government you pissbaby
Jaxson Johnson
>where is this "natural monopoly"? if you would read this: it will tell you
Examples of natural monopolies: >gas network >electricity grid >tap water >Railway infrastructure other near-monopolies include: >aeroplane manufacture >digital platforms (digital network infrastructure has tremendous economies of scale that lead to massive functional monopolies, such as uber) >bus services ....etc
this is basic economics that hardcore libertarians blatantly ignore, because it's inconvenient to their ideology
Nicholas Reed
There is only one functional difference between being controlled by a government instead of a private corporation
A government is operated for the benefit of its employees, and a corporation is operated for the benefit of its owner/shareholders
If you're not a communist you're aware that option 2 produces better results every single time. The communist restaurant is run for the people, and the capitalist restaurant for profit - but which has better food?
Aaron Rodriguez
>the nation a whole or what make anational individuals? Show me such a nation.
Nathan Nguyen
>you need food and shelter and the only way you get those things is by doing what corporations tell you to. this is your own fault dude. i already told you earlier in the thread, people like you shit on the mountain men of the world. you shit on the rednecks, the hillbillies. the people who know how to do all of these things, well look at the misery that results from your helplessness? look at the feelings of impotence you have. you are afraid of some corporation ruling over you to the point where you are willing to give up all of your freedom.
look, i'm SORRY that you weren't taught how to take care of yourself in this world outside of the economic system. i understand that the urban people, who call us "rural retards" don't typically stuff like that, as a rule. but where im from, that's just part and parcel of growing up. it's par for the course. it's very natural and we DO look at you folks and say "wow, that's really sad that nobody has taught them how to take care of themselves. they must feel REALLY weak and helpless" and then i see your political beliefs and what they're based on and i see that i'm right
Owen Bell
>What exactly is the difference between a large corporation and the government, again? Can you really not make the difference between tax agents extracting your capital and directing you and a business offering services against payment?
Daniel Davis
This is a non argument. I haven't seen one person here argue for socialising private property. Nobody is arguing for that position, stop strawmanning.
Noah Cruz
YOU THINK GAS AND ELECTRICITY GRID AND TAP WATER ARE "NATURAL MONOPOLIES" ok no i'm not the one that needs to read more, you do. have you even been paying attention to the conversation you're involved in? and you have the fucking NERVE to tell me that i'm the one that needs to learn about economics
gas, electric, water, railroads, transportation, aeronatics, DIGITAL PLATFORMS INCLUDING FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, ALL OF THE REST all of those are subsidized by the government bud. those are all publicly funded but privately owned. you need to learn more about those industries and maybe then you'll start to see EXACTLY what i'm talking about because once more your examples here are only proving how right i am, NOT how right you are
Zachary Watson
Socialism: Everyone is the government's bitch.
Libertarianism: Everyone is big companies' bitch.
Xavier Rivera
just to be clear, in case you genuinely don't know this, ALL of those industries you mention are given BILLIONS of dollars by the government. BILLIONS. i am talking UNTOLD MONEY. even google alone gets over a BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in subsidies ok? this is the whole point.
you want to know why the world isn't fair? it's not becasue of "libertarianism" or "freedom" or "the right wing" it's because of lefty big government that funds the 1% and you fag socialists just keep voting for them over and over and over and over and every time you're too stupid to understand what you're doing and how they're running cons on you
Ian Sullivan
And like I said earlier, on whose land are you going to live?
And why would they let you live on it?
Its fine if you thing chopping wood like a neanderthal from 100 thousand fucking years ago is an essential skill for a human today to have, but you can't chop wood on other peoples property. And you don't own property because you are poor.
Noah Phillips
The best use for fascists is to burn them to boil water, in order to turn a turbine, so as to generate electricity, with which to electrocute fascists.
James Gutierrez
they are regulated by the government, because they are natural monopolies
For example, 2 firms lay a duplicate network of pipes in the ground is less efficient than just having 1 firm. Having 5 different competing roads between two locations is less efficient than just having 1.
There are plenty of industries and situations where the most economically efficient number of suppliers is 1
Jayden Reyes
>not understanding the difference between rape and love making in current year. kys.
Ayden Rivera
>champion of the People >21st century Western Country
l o l
Adam Cox
i don't know why this land thing comes up. are you talking about anarcho capitalism? are you like the other posters in this thread who automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you is talking about anarcho capitalism?
beyond that most of the large woodlands in this coutnry is federally owned. it's called "conservation land" ever hear of it?
but land is actually exceptionally cheap in a proper economy. it's exceptionally cheap now, i mean you can go out and buy prime land in many parts of this country for a couple hundred bucks an acre
Joshua Collins
You invent a bizarre scenario of an ostracized man without capital. First everyone always has capital, if only his own body and mind. Second, good luck convincing people to maintain any ostracism in lolbertarianism.
Angel Nelson
>this is just really empty talk. like really empty. there's just not even a shred of substance here for me to latch on to and have a real discussion about >I don't have a counter argument! >so you're essentially defending the government giving out billion dollar subsidies to all of these huge corporations? In some cases it's absolutely necessary for the state to provide funding, especially in a high capital and highly volatile industry. There are countless cases of states providing financing to companies while capital costs are high and an industry is in its early stages. It allows the company to grow while capital requirements go down over time. Some essential industries wouldn't even exist today if the state didn't provide the early capital. So from the point of practicality, it's sometimes necessary.
Secondly, it's irrelevant whether I defend it or not. It will happen, regardless. It's in the interest of capital to cosy up to the state for benefits. Both capital and the state need each other. You're a naive idealist.
I don't hate capitlists, capitalists do what the logic of capital dictates. I don't hate a tiger for killing someone, it's what tigers do. The rest of your post is a bunch of rambling nonsense with zero arguments.
Ethan Rivera
I thought we didn't like the government doing things like owning huge swathes of land?
Carson Gomez
Hitler caring about the environment unlike capitalists.
Ryder Thompson
>For example, 2 firms lay a duplicate network of pipes in the ground is less efficient than just having 1 firm. Having 5 different competing roads between two locations is less efficient than just having 1. >There are plenty of industries and situations where the most economically efficient number of suppliers is 1 It is for the market to decide that. If it was truly more efficient, consumers would naturally spend money towards a cartel. Reminder that all cases of supposed "natural monopolies" have been btfo. Postal service was not 30 years ago thought as an obvious monopoly. Who now would rather use state post rather than Fedex or UPS? Telephone companies were also "obvious" "natural" monopolies until it was open and cartels were btfo. Water treatment too. Energy distribution too.
Julian Nelson
Modern Capitalism. Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism are Jewish ideologies.
Easton Anderson
>they are regulated by the government, because they are natural monopolies ok you just made this up though. this is ahistorical. this is completely contrary to the facts, you literally just made this up to try and keep arguing. that is not why they are "regulated by the government" they were created by the government through subsidies. not founded, mind you, but built up and turned into what they are today, through federal and local subsidies, grants of contracts, and other things. i'm going to say what you said to me earlier in the thread "learn basic economics" because its becoming more nad more and more clear you literally don't know the first thing about what you're talking about
your fucking shitty socialism memes that you found on reddit don't mean a thing either. learn actual economics not fucking fag meme economics and don't bother to learn it on reddit omfg. you're only working with half of the story because the left lies by omission
Parker Jenkins
>claiming to be a socialist and literally defending giving out billion dollar subsidies to the 1% AAAAAASASASSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAA
SOCIALISTS FULL OF SHIT CONFIRMED SOCIALIST JUST WANTING TO BE CONTRARIAN AND ARGUE WITH RIGHT-WINGERS FOR THE SAKE OR ARGUING WITH THEM CONFIRMED
OMFG LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOO
Brody Harris
i didn't say whether i like anything or not dude, you did. i am just answering your question as to who owns most of the woodland in this nation. but like i said, aside from that, you can buy land VERY cheap still to this day. nobody is stopping you from doing so, oh, that's right, except the government which is going to tax your ass on that land. so although you COULD have just "bought it" and owned it and nobody could have fucked with you over it, now you'll have to go and be a part of that system you don't want to be a part of, at least in some small way, because your socialist government is going to tax you on it. see how fucking wrong you are? see how you are working in the exact opposite of your interests? of your freedom? see how you're the useful idiot? thank socialism for that because we haven't been a truly capitalist country for a very long time
Ryder Nguyen
UPS and Fedex have been able to differentiate their services to carve out a niche for themselves, but you're wrong to say that everyone believed the postal service was an obvious natural monopoly. The postal service is part of the vital national infrastructure, and has utility beyond just business, which is why it's subsidized and supported.
For example, part of the reason the federal government supports the maintenance of the national interstate highway system, is because if there was ever a military invasion, you need those highways to transport tanks around the country. Those highways are part of our vital national infrastructure.
But things such as water networks, sewage networks, electrical networks....etc are indeed natural monopolies. It makes more sense for the local government to own them, and let corporations bid on the right to service/maintain them. That way there is plenty of competition, instead of just subjecting the people to the iron grip of an extortionist monopoly
Logan Moore
>you're wrong to say that everyone believed the postal service was an obvious natural monopoly. It was though. There were very heavy, in practice crippling, limitations on private postage. Even in comparatively lolbertarian 1845 America, Lysander Spooner got his private mail service shit down purely arbitrarily.
Robert Sullivan
>But things such as water networks, sewage networks, electrical networks....etc are indeed natural monopolies. Competing water and electricity networks have been a thing and are still a thing where it is allowed. There is not a single reason for the government to impose monopoly for these. If it was truly beneficial, it would be the choice of consumers.
Connor Clark
do you want houses to have running water? If so, you need to have a water network. And it turns out to be way more efficient if all the houses in a region are hooked up to the same network.
Everyone in your housing development has the same water supplier. They must all agree on who that is, the rate they will pay, what the water pressure will be....etc. Whoever this supplier is will have a monopoly position over the people in the town.
That's why these things are usually regulated by the local government
Christopher Bell
socialism only seems like a "step up" when you're already enslaved. that's why it's always pathetic, indoctrinated urban trendies who are into it. to anyone who is living free on this planet, and living the right way, it's nothing but forced enslavement.
maybe you should focus on bettering yourself OP. maybe you should focus on learning some skills, creating a life for yourself away from all of the economic rat race that you don't like. maybe you should direct your efforts to advocating for your own freedom and your genuine interests, rather than trying to convince everyone that they need to be slaves just to make your individual living situation better and more tolerable. we right-wingers would be happy to see you make something better of your own life, but all you want to do to us is tear us down. if you think long and hard about that, you'll see why there's something fundamentally malignant and malevolent at the center of your philosophy, and something fundamentally decent at the center of ours
Zachary Sanchez
>Living in the woods is not a viable neck yourself
Andrew Fisher
ok cool so now the lefty socialist is actually DEFENDING the billion dollar subsidies and the human enslavement forced on then by their governments. i guess all of that "vote for your economic interests!" shit was just rhetoric, huh? you are ALL useful idiots for the 1%. ALL lefties. right-wingers try to tell you this all of the time but its only when you're finally painted into the corners that it comes out, that you actually outright defend funding ultra-billionaires and mega-corporations and literally the worst kind of fundamental "inequalities" that anyone could imagine
Jonathan Flores
walmart can only operate because welfare exists to support it's workers.
Nicholas Ward
>Competing water and electricity networks have been a thing and are still a thing where it is allowed do you not understand how having 2 duplicate water networks all servicing the same houses is less efficient than just having 1?
And remember for a scenario of perfect competition you need 5 or more competing firms. Imagine each house in a town having duplicate sets of water pipes leading into it. This is really basic economics 101 stuff. Libertarians claim to be these grand wizards of economics, the fact they are willfully ignorant of this is very telling
Leo Moore
fucking lefties are perpetually too stupid to see how they're being taken advantage of by social programs. the whole idea of socialism and leftism, going back even to people like saul alinsky, is to keep people stupid and helpless. one of the benefits (for corporations) of the way our welfare system is structured right now is that it allows businesses like walmart to take advantage of it and essentially pay its workers next to nothing, granting them almost no hours, and they can still live off of welfare
aaaaaaaaaaaand then these same lefties will literally look at right-wingers and talk about how opposing their programs and ideas is to oppose "living wages". and its like "bro, you really don't see the fucking connection here? you really don't see this fucking con that's being pulled on you?"
nobody on the left really cares about "living wages" they care about enslavement
Dominic Stewart
Communism and capitalism two sides of the same jewish coin./thread
Henry Morgan
>do you not understand how having 2 duplicate water networks all servicing the same houses is less efficient than just having 1? It is for people to decide that on the open market. >perfect competition You won't find a single libertarian that believes in the utter Walrasian retardation of "perfect competition".
Ayden Cooper
governments can enslave you, but they also free you.
For example, the rules against spamming on Sup Forums are the reason we are able to have this conversation right now. These rules ensure that everyone is free to speak their mind.
Laws against speeding ensure everyone is free to safely travel the roads. Laws against public indecency ensure that everyone is free to walk their children down the street.
Rules and restrictions can enslave you, but also lead to even greater freedom for everyone
Christian Stewart
>governments can enslave you, but they also free you. >Rules and restrictions can enslave you, but also lead to even greater freedom for everyone No. People can set up rules for how their property operate. If the state owns the highways, it is making the rules about driving on them, but that has nothing with "greater freedom for everyone".
Nathan Lewis
ok so you want state control of everything. we get it. you're totally fine with the 1% and the massive power these corporations have, and you want the government to continue funding them. you don't want meritocracy, you don't want people to have the ability to start their own businesses, or to be able to work for themselves. you want corporate slavery for all, all funded and organized and subsidized by the government.
you want the DMV for every aspect of life, cool
but at the end of the day this issue, along with a number of others, naturally, exposes the lefties as the massive fucking useful idiot hypocrites that they've always been
Tyler Rodriguez
>It is for people to decide that on the open market. lol, mate, it's just logic. Use your head. Having 5 competing bridges is less efficient than just having 1.
For example, in some places it is more efficient to service multiple different towns and regions with 1 powerplant, instead of having 1 separate powerplant for each town. In such an instance, you have entire counties subject to 1 monopoly. You can see why these are regulated
Parker Jones
that's the biggest problem.
>if a corp does shitty stuff, people will just move away and buy the products of a non-shitty corp.
yeah, except that the majority of people will buy literal shit as long as it's painted gold
Jose Russell
>governments can enslave you, but they also free you. The things you're describing as freedom aren't real freedom. Having the "freedom to act within the system" isn't true freedom.
Isaiah Thomas
>unironically comparing federal governments to fucking Sup Forums internet moderation neck yourself dude, this is known as "false equivalence". also mind you Sup Forums is a private entity, not a "government", so this is actually an argument that would support the ancap point of view, not yours, and not that i'm even an ancap
Luis Anderson
>ok so you want state control of everything. we get it. so this is the power of libertarian argumentation
Henry Davis
Imagine driving down a lawless road it would be like wandering around the PvP area in Runescape, you wouldn't feel very free to conduct your ordinary business
