Dear commies, if you could but for a second look within yourselves and ask whether the notion that socialist views are grounded, not only in poor understanding, but also in a level of neurosis, it might make for fruitful discussion.
According to Ludwig von Mises, it is not simply a matter of economic illiteracy and intellectual error in general. Rather, it is a psychological matter. He even went so far as to argue that the roots of socialism lie in neurosis.
“…the root of the opposition to liberalism cannot be reached by resort to the method of reason. This opposition does not stem from the reason, but from a pathological mental attitude—from resentment and from a neurasthenic condition that one might call a Fourier complex, after the French socialist of that name”
That's pretty much in line with Ted K's assessment of leftist psychology
>Feelings of inferiority
>Over socialization
That's why they care more about randos from the future thinking they're right then actually being right
Eli Nelson
I'll sum up my opposition to liberalism: Capitalism/liberalism is designed to maximize happiness. The way it does this is by stimulating desire and then satisfying it, leading to an endless cycle of requiring more and more.
This is in contrast to, for example, a National Socialist system, which does not seek to maximize happiness and instead minimize suffering. The way it does this is by determining adequate supply and then limiting demand to make sure everyone's needs are met.
Now explain how the National Socialist viewpoint is a "neurosis" and how the Capitalist/liberal viewpoint is "healthy."
James Bell
Well that's simple. You've got capitalism entirely wrong as most on the left do, simpliciter.
Capitalism is simply individuals being free to buy and sell as they wish, no more.
Depending on one's view, a state could exist to provide certain things to enhance the free aspects of the market and mitigate conflict (basic contract law, property rights, tort law, a government to provide military/border protection, a mandatory minimum insurance framework, and the necessary coercion to back these things).
In this sense I would say the essential element of capitalism/liberalism, is that they give the individual, the freedom to choose. This choice is the most important element, as it leaves the individual responsible.
Now, in a finite world, nothing is distributed evenly from the get go, so we must make do with the cards dealt. Wealth itself can be created and is not a fixed pie or zero sum game, so each individual is free to pursue it to achieve their desired ends.
Justin Price
To tackle your precise question.
National socialism remains socialism whatever prefix or suffice you add to it, as the necessity of state direction and the problems inherent in such system (common to all forms of socialism/communism) remain. I seriously disagree with the proposition that it seeks to minimize suffering (from where does your claim derive)? Furthermore, if it sought to do so, it's following the precisely wrong methodology. It is impossible for a system reliant on direction by a planning board to determine adequate supply/demand as efficiently as the market, because its own action disrupts the price mechanism and, only individuals can accurately determine prices which cause a thoroughly efficient economy.
Easton Lopez
>Capitalism is simply individuals being free to buy and sell as they wish yeah but a system based on this premise doesn't have merit beyond fulfilling base, vulgar desires that are often deleterious to the social order. pedos, prostitutes, poison peddlers and snake oil salesmen shouldn't have a place in a healthy society, but capitalism allows for the unfettered, sometimes artificial, demand for such things be met and commercialized in a big way.
i'm 100% for a market economy but the idea of a rational economic actor is total bullshit. we are low animals who need strong social coercion to not just fall into pleasure traps
Leo Allen
>as the necessity of state direction and the problems inherent in such system (common to all forms of socialism/communism) remain national socialism allows for markets and entrepreneurs to have a mostly free hand in their own business.
Levi Powell
>You've got capitalism entirely wrong as most on the left do, simpliciter. Is the goal of advertisements not to get people to buy what they do not need? Is consumerism not promoted heavily in the media? Do the values capitalism leads one to care about not cause one to focus primarily on one's own personal happiness? >Capitalism is simply individuals being free to buy and sell as they wish, no more. And it regards the individual as supreme, if someone else fails, fuck them, doesn't matter if they're a countryman, doesn't matter if they're a war veteran, they're NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. > In this sense I would say the essential element of capitalism/liberalism, is that they give the individual, the freedom to choose. This choice is the most important element, as it leaves the individual responsible. Even if it is to the detriment of other individuals, which was my characterization. >Now, in a finite world, nothing is distributed evenly from the get go, so we must make do with the cards dealt. Wealth itself can be created and is not a fixed pie or zero sum game, so each individual is free to pursue it to achieve their desired ends. I agree that wealth and value can be created, my contention is based on who deserves the value that's created, and how the goods that are produced should be distributed. >National socialism remains socialism whatever prefix or suffice you add to it, as the necessity of state direction and the problems inherent in such system There is a difference between a centrally planned, and a centrally directed system, did you read my pic? >I seriously disagree with the proposition that it seeks to minimize suffering (from where does your claim derive)? axiomatic to the worldview of national socialism; it does not need require derivation or proof >It is impossible for a system reliant on direction by a planning board to determine adequate supply Why can you not determine the supply of food needed to feed everyone... continued...
Mason Young
As mentioned capitalism really isn't about stimulating demand. It is about satisfying it.
In re NatSoc, one simply cannot determine, and therefore direct, an adequate supply as they do not know what individuals want. It isn't simply a matter of knowing or calculating how many people need to eat how much and when (a nigh impossible exercise for a state to direct without being omniscient), but of adapting to varying desires. Only the market can do this as effectively. Those things which satisfy our needs have inherent value, and it is this value which is subjective and impossible for the state directors to rationally determine. Hence they are prone to misallocation. This would seriously undermine the notion of the minimizing of suffering, which is allegedly the goal of a natsoc system, as individuals would not be effectively provided with what they need or desire, and they would, therefore, suffer.
However, to return to the topic of neurosis...
Mason Thomas
If you think that the system doesn't have merit because it caters to ABC you view as negative, whilst ignoring the vast number (majority) of other things capitalism efficiently allocates, your reasoning would be seriously flawed bordering on absurdity.
The thing you're missing is that it's not your business what other people are pursuing, it's theirs.
So you implicitly therefore accept the efficiencies of the free market, and allow its alleged evils, whilst advocating an apparently morally superior system, which doesn't do what you think it will, and you then erroneously mislabel your hybrid system as NatSoc? It seems like you're just taking capitalism's thunder there, and relabelling what should really be an inefficient hybrid...
Kayden Lee
One problem for me out of many is this. What is the smallest denominator in this world for men and women. It is the individual person. Society must be based on the dignity of each and every person, the Indivisible "unit" of a society. Socialism seems to turn everything on it's head and makes it so the individual must be subordinated to society.
It is fuckdd up
Jaxon Hall
needed to feed everyone based on a census, and then encourage people to choose the food they want, but to promote certain (healthy) foods? >as efficiently as the market The goal is not to deliver goods to the people with money, but to the people who need them. >As mentioned capitalism really isn't about stimulating demand. It is about satisfying it. But stimulating it increases profits, hence the constant advertisements for products people do not need. >In re NatSoc, one simply cannot determine, and therefore direct, an adequate supply as they do not know what individuals want. You CAN determine what is necessary, and what is optional. Limit the production of what is optional, and produce as much of what is necessary as is needed. >but of adapting to varying desires. When someone has an addiction to something, is the solution to give him what he is addicted to, or to limit it? You would support giving everyone heroin because people would desire it. >Those things which satisfy our needs have inherent value, and it is this value which is subjective and impossible for the state directors to rationally determine. It is easy to determine supplies of what is necessary (clothing, food, shelter, water, etc) and what is not necessary does not NEED to be provided, it is optional. >Hence they are prone to misallocation. This would seriously undermine the notion of the minimizing of suffering, which is allegedly the goal of a natsoc system, as individuals would not be effectively provided with what they need or desire, and they would, therefore, suffer. They would always be provided what they need, and sometimes what they desire, but stimulating addiction or attachment to anything for the sake of profits is disgusting to me, it damages the health of your people.
Blake Hill
The goal of advertisements is to get market participants to choose one product over another. This is competitive edge. Are people going to buy a product they have heard of before, or one they have never heard of before? Consumerism is just competition. The essence of human existence is to be self interest, no system ignores this and no system should do so, as to do so would be disastrous. If all worked freely (and legally) towards their own happiness, would we not live in a happier world?
The individual must necessarily be supreme. It is up to individuals to decide whether or not to associate with groups, for X reason. The should not be arbitrarily lumped into category Y by A for Z reason, this is to do an injustice to the individual. If one is not economically viable, it is up to them to be viable in other ways (socially etc.), or to have planned for such a time in their life when they might not be economically viable and take precautions. Personal responsibility is key here, and essential.
Who deserves the value of that which is created? Simple, the creators.
How can goods be distributed? By the market, where individuals decide what they are willing to pay.
Your distinction between planned and directed does not work, think about it more.
So then why was socialism responsible for so much human suffering when it was tried? Your proposition flies in the face of reality, hence the question.
Why can you not determine the supply, for reasons I laid out...
Jordan Cook
>The goal of advertisements is to get market participants to choose one product over another. Or to choose one product over NOT CHOOSING ANY PRODUCT AT ALL. >The essence of human existence is to be self interest I agree, we all have to fulfill our needs. The question is, once your needs are fulfilled, do you help someone else fulfill his, or do you go after what you want rather than what you need? The answer to that question reveals much about a person's character. >If all worked freely (and legally) towards their own happiness, would we not live in a happier world? Everyone individually trying to maximize their own happiness leads to the tragedy of the commons, and to people disregarding other entities as lesser because they are not as "economically important" to society. A society which cares about its people and values its people should care about all its citizens, the health and well-being of everyone. >The individual must necessarily be supreme I don't disagree; my contention is that the individual can be heroic rather than apathetic or villainous. >Who deserves the value of that which is created? Simple, the creators. So you believe in the labor theory of value? Interesting position for a so-called capitalist. >How can goods be distributed? By the market, where individuals decide what they are willing to pay. And some individuals will have to work for days to get what a man who merely owns property and does nothing can earn in minutes. The idea, that goods go to those who provide more work, is a good one, but our current monetary system allows people who do no work to generate wealth, and this must be abolished. >So then why was socialism responsible for so much human suffering when it was tried? Your proposition flies in the face of reality, hence the question. Read the pictures I have posted to answer that question.
Jace Allen
"Why can you not determine the supply of food needed to feed everyone..." Because, people may not like or want a particular item of food. You don't know what you want, hence you cannot plan to give it to them. "The goal is not to deliver goods to the people with money, but to the people who need them." Utterly nonsensical circular reasoning. Goods required to meet our needs must be created, refined, produced etc., someone must do this, who must themselves meet their need for A. If they are obtaining A, they might be unable to obtain B (or be in sufficient quantity) to meet their need. Hence, a division of labour is required so that person A producing an inedible but necessary good, can still eat. People must provide for themselves in some manner or another, this is life.
"But stimulating it increases profits, hence the constant advertisements for products people do not need." This is a non-sequitur.
"You CAN determine what is necessary..." You can determine what people need at minimum via direction, food, water shelter, but you cannot allocate anywhere nearly as efficiently as the market. You cannot diversify this so as to generate happiness or avoid misery. If all everyone can eat is rice, or they can only wear size 9 shoes, they are bound to be less happy. I don't think you've thought through how grand this knowledge problem is.
"When someone has an addiction to something" - this is their problem and not yours. They are an independent moral agent, and so long as they are not infringing another's right to life, liberty, or property, it is none of your concern. This fact does not preclude charity.
Oliver Johnson
Cont. "It is easy to determine" - it really is. Your skipping over these optional items, many which produce great ease, comfort and happiness, seriously undermines your goal of preventing suffering.
"They would always be provided what they need" - Except they wouldn't, precisely because of the allocation problem and the knowledge problem. You cannot evade these.
"Or to c..." - non sequitur
"I agree, we all have to fulfill" - It's not the business of yours or the planning board what A decides to do with his or her property.
"Everyone individually trying" - Non of what I have said precludes individuals deemed as not as economically important from increasing their economic importance. They have a choice to fix it, if they cannot, they've lost the evolutionary game. In life you MUST fight to survive. Arguing otherwise annihilates your argument, as even Hitler said that [paraphrase] "he who does not wish to fight does not deserve to live".
Asher Price
"I don't disagree; my contention is that the individual can be heroic rather than apathetic or villainous." - Heroic is a subjective definition along with villainous. In any case, individuals are free to choose and must be. If one does not like villains, do not buy and sell from them or socialize with them and their behaviour may well change. But do not ask the state to coerce them to do X, as then you are the villain.
"So you believe in the labor theory of value" - Lol, not at all. The creators are the owners of the good, who caused its inception. If they must pay others to help them produce it, that does not entitle such others to the good, merely the share they are contractually entitled to.
"And some individuals..." - There is nothing wrong with this. You don't understand incentive. If one has sufficient capital and resources they ought to be entitled to live of such accumulated resources. Should we not accumulate resources? How do we deal with shortages then? Live day to day? The species would have gone extinct or not have developed nearly as much if this were the case. Again, the workers are not precluded from achieving the position of the leisurely gentleman. We must be allowed to accumulate things to make our lives safer, better, and more happy.
"Read the pictures" - Section reference, I still disagree.
Nicholas Diaz
>Because, people may not like or want a particular item of food. That's certainly possible, and they should still have the freedom to choose. The question is, should the state subsidize what is beneficial for the population, reducing the price for healthy options, or should people choose whatever options they want, leading to a 68% obesity rate? >Utterly nonsensical circular... "If a farmer should ask me what is the value of the goods that he produces, I should reply, the value of the work that they enable a town labourer to do." - Adolf Hitler >This is a non-sequitur. How so? Capitalism has an incentive to get people to act on their desires, to impulsively buy what they do not need, which goes back to my point; capitalism does not just satisfy desires, it increases them. >You can determine what people need at minimum via direction, food, water shelter, but you cannot allocate anywhere nearly as efficiently as the market. Who's to say I wouldn't use a market after the supply has been set for the production of goods and allocation of labor? >this is their problem and not yours Some people are willing to watch others destroy their lives, others will stop them. >Your skipping over these optional items, many which produce great ease, comfort and happiness, seriously undermines your goal of preventing suffering. Automation of work would be heavily encouraged, and anything increasing the ease of work would be encouraged as well, as these would reduce suffering and allow for more efficient production. >"Or to c..." - non sequitur Same as above, it is related. >It's not the business of yours or the planning board what A decides to do with his or her property. If it damages the nation, or if it's suboptimal, then why not? >they've lost the evolutionary game. In life you MUST fight to survive. You must fight to pass on your genes, but we can choose to help others survive. If you lack empathy with other beings I understand why you would ignore others.
Brody Ramirez
No, it lies in not wanting to get exploited by Jewish (((capitalists))).
Aiden Johnson
>Heroic is subjective But it can be defined according to objective metamoral values >individuals are free to choose and must be Not if it would mean increasing the suffering of others, no. >There is nothing wrong with this. For you, yes, nothing is wrong. For me, individuals should work to provide something to a society. All income not earned through work should be abolished. Either you agree that people should contribute or you support bourgeoisie decadence. >section reference Read all of them if you seriously want to challenge your worldview. If you don't then this conversation is pointless anyway.
Jose Phillips
just fucking gas the jews, control niggers, gas degenerates (of every race) and that's all
Julian Jones
"should the state subsidize" - where does the state get its money? People cannot choose properly if the state only provides a limited number of options. They would still be dissatisfied. The market allows them to be exposed to tantalizing new things.
Value is subjective, and is determined by the individual, it is what they are willing to pay for something, simpliciter. It cannot be otherwise.
"How so? [read, think] Capitalism has an incentive..." - Wrong. People are incentivised by their own desires to fulfill them. They buy what they want and need. It is this increase in desires and these being catered to which makes people more comfortable and happy. One can still choose moderation in a capitalist system if they wish, there is nothing preventing them at all. Your criticism is a subjective moral one, and flawed.
"Who's to say I wouldn't use a market" - this really doesn't make any sense. Prices fluctuate as desires change and supply/demand fluctuates.
"others will stop them." - it's not your place to do so, they made a choice, you're taking it from them.
"Automation of work would be heavily encouraged" - this wasn't an answer or solution to the problem. It's an expose of a pipedream.
"then why not?" - because human freedom has value and because the individuals who make up the state may well be (likely are) just as if not more evil.
"we can choose to help others survive" - capitalism does not preclude charity, for the 3rd time at least...
Anyway, this thread is derailed. You need to read some basic economics and the article in my OP. You definitely have the neurosis as well as a lack of understanding of principles.
Hayek: The Constitution of Liberty; The Road to Serfdom
If these don't make much sense I'd recommend some Immanuel Kant to start off.
Thomas Roberts
"But it can be defined- No it cannot. People can generally agree on what constitutes a heroic ideal.
"Not if it would..." - The system you're advocating (where individuals are not free) has lead to some of the greatest suffering in human history. By contrast, the application of free market practices and liberty resulted in the ascendancy of human kind since the 17th century onwards, until it came crashing down with WW1 and the rise of socialist state directed economies.
Furthermore, you don't get to decide this.
"For you, yes, nothing is wrong. For me... bourgeoisie decadence." - You have no right to decide this, you do not Lord over others. If all income not earned through direct labour were abolished, we'd be living in the stone age still. Furthermore, you could not abolish it or monitor it, without having all of society literally chained to a cell wall. What was that you said initially about minimising human suffering? So far, all you've advocated are things which would markedly increase human suffering. The chance of being able to be decadent, even for a time, is motivating and raises individuals to great heights.
"Read all of them" - I looked at them. But if they are making elementary economic misconceptions based on demonstrable misunderstanding of reality, why read further when the premises are tautologous?
I suggest you read the article posted initially, and cease this neurosis of ressentiment.
Lincoln Collins
>where does the state get its money? The state has a supply of labor that it can direct to any endeavor it chooses. >Value is subjective, and is determined by the individual I disagree and agree; some things allow an objective amount of other work to be performed by their production, other things may only have value to some individuals >People are incentivised by their own desires to fulfill them And should they be fulfilled or limited? Who is more correct, the hedonist, or the Buddhist? >your criticism is a subjective moral one But it will appeal to all people who prioritize minimizing suffering over maximizing happiness, i.e. all noble individuals. >this really doesn't make any sense. Because you still have not read what I provided >they made a choice, you're taking it from them. I refuse to tolerate any form of slavery, whether to desire, whether to another being, to ideas, anything. >this wasn't an answer or solution to the problem. You said I would not focus on "comfort and ease" and I denied that, because those things can aid in fulfilling the national purpose. >because human freedom has value I agree, but you do not have the freedom to harm others, you do not have the freedom to harm the land, or the environment, and you do not have the freedom to take opportunities from other people. Pic related, though you will yet again not read it. >capitalism does not preclude charity, for the 3rd time at least certainly doesn't encourage it >Learn some basics, here: I was a libertarian once, and I disagree with it because of the formation of monopolies, both economic and nepotistic, and because I believe a state should be as large as possible to facilitate its purpose: minimizing suffering and maximizing freedom (pic related again)
Kevin Wood
>People can generally agree on what constitutes a heroic ideal. I'm glad you agree with me > The system you're advocating (where individuals are not free) has lead to some of the greatest suffering in human history. By contrast, the application of free market practices and liberty resulted in the ascendancy of human kind since the 17th century onwards, until it came crashing down with WW1 and the rise of socialist state directed economies. It is not freedom to be a slave to your desires, or to someone just because he has more money than you. >You have no right to decide this You have no right to say I don't have a right to decide that. Rights are determined only by who has power, nothing else. >If all income not earned through direct labour were abolished, we'd be living in the stone age still. You've been trained well by the capitalist propaganda, you know capitalism hasn't been around for that long, right? >But if they are making elementary economic misconceptions based on demonstrable misunderstanding of reality, why read further when the premises are tautologous? What are these misconceptions? Some of them are not based on the way reality IS but the way it OUGHT TO BE, the idealist-naturalist split. >cease this neurosis of ressentiment. I do not have ressentiment, I have fury, and love for other beings. I do not want the material things the rich have, I am not envious of that, I just think they are despicable beings for sustaining a system which causes widespread suffering, division, and alienation, but they are not significantly worse than the average person.
Daniel Young
>where does the state get its money? The state has a supply of labor that it can direct to any endeavor it chooses.
>they made a choice, you're taking it from them. I refuse to tolerate any form of slavery, whether to desire, whether to another being, to ideas, anything.
I'm going to leave you with this SERIOUS inconsistency. Watch the videos I sent and think about the most elementary principles.
"Who is more correct, the hedonist, or the Buddhist?" - It doesn't matter, each can choose to do what they will so long as they don't hinder the right to life, liberty, or property of others.
"fulfilling the national purpose." - You seem to have very callous disregard for the individual's desires. Who decides this "national purpose", and what if who decides, gives a terrible idea? A democracy? OK, but then how do you effectively and efficiently allocate and provide the billions of things you need to direct and provide in your fanciful economy, and do so democratically? You simply can't, it wouldn't work. Furthermore, you'd need absence of democracy to effectively pursue the 'national goal'.
"certainly doesn't encourage it" - I think you'd be very surprised. How many individuals do you think would help their family or parents if they had a good job? Most everyone? Have you looked at charities in the 19th century UK? You ought to before making such a ridiculous claim.
"I was a libertarian once, and I disagree with it because of the formation of monopolies, both economic and nepotistic, and because I believe a state should be as large as possible to facilitate its purpose: minimizing suffering and maximizing freedom (pic related again)" - the STATE forms and maintains true monopolies, not the market. The state will achieve the exact opposite of what you naively believe it will. mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
Evan Edwards
FYI - I did read a fair bit of it (your pic) but it is largely economically illiterate and unrealistic.
The one on Freedom is even worse, and ridiculously equates state coercion with private market power.
State coercion is altogether more powerful so as to be almost an entirely different kind of power. Private power is not so. Hayek makes this very (inarguably) clear in Road to Serfdom, which I recommend you read, along with those videos.
Anyway, done here, as the neurosis is very clear.
Tyler Taylor
>according to Ludwig von Mises lmao this is a gonna be a great thread OP
You don't have to be motivated by resentment to dislike a fundamentally irrational system like capitalism, which presupposes infinite growth from finite resources, or an ideology like liberalism, which presents itself as neutral while violently cutting down any threat to its existing order.
Carter Rodriguez
>I'm going to leave you with this SERIOUS inconsistency. I do not see the inconsistency here. People who want jobs and thus the goods necessary for life should be provided them by the state; there should never be unemployment. The issue is that everyone has needs that we have to fulfill, but would prefer that we didn't. We are unfortunately slaves to our bodily needs, and liberation from that is not possible in this lifetime. The goal should be that people work so that work is never necessary, so that all needed goods can be provided just for living. Perhaps we are there already, in which case, work is not needed and can be abolished for people who do not want to work. Perhaps we are near there, in which case that should be our goal, our aim, and what we currently work towards. >Watch the videos I sent and think about the most elementary principles. I have been a libertarian before, and I disagree fundamentally with their worldview, with what they claim is the purpose to existence. The picture in generally has my opinions on it. >It doesn't matter, each can choose to do what they will so long as they don't hinder the right to life, liberty, or property of others. And if in the pursuit of property it precludes someone else from having life? What then? >You seem to have very callous disregard for the individual's desires And you have a callous disregard for individual's needs, which is worse? >the STATE forms and maintains true monopolies, not the market And what happens when a bunch of nepotistic Jews decide to only let other Jews into an industry? That can happen without a state, is that acceptable to you? >economically illiterate i.e. not capitalist >unrealistic. idealistic, unsatisfied with suboptimal systems >Anyway, done here, as the neurosis is very clear. Labeling someone as mentally ill has always been a way to prevent discussion, but I agree, I value minimizing suffering, you value satisfying desire, it's irreconcilable.
Charles Harris
meant to reply to this post
Lincoln Martinez
I think I misunderstood the assignment. In any case Jeremy Irons shoved my cousin to the ground because she accidentally poked him with a sword during scene rehearsal(that didn't even make the final cut) for Dungeons and Dragons so fuck him
Camden Anderson
Stupid cunt should have watched what the fuck she was doing.
I'm not responding to the commies off topic anymore here.
The neurosis I think is manifestly evident in their complete failure to understand the basic fact patters. They regularly have things precisely backwards.
Luke Hall
>which presupposes infinite growth from finite resources source?
Josiah Butler
well congratulations on crawling inside your butthole to hide from criticism, it takes a real athlete.
Jackson Gomez
>what happens when a bunch of nepotistic Jews decide to only let other Jews into an industry? That can happen without a state, is that acceptable to you? this problem is self solving because all the industries the jews want to get into always seem to require the state to prop themselves up prove me wrong
Bentley Long
this describes the life of marx
Logan Martin
Pretty much every economic theorist ever. I'm pretty sure even von mises premised his theory on the fact that capitalists were profit seekers (and this was why capitalism was preferable to market socialism, to him, and artificial markets). In the very act of exchange, the point is to end up with more than what you started with. Over time, this then turns into investing gains back into production to create more gains. If capitalism were not to grow, it would have no need for capitalists, or aggregate profit.
Easton Ramirez
>ancap thinking anyone cares what it thinks >misses the "of" Is this a bot or just an autist?
Answer: Nobody cares.
Chase Ross
Hahaha, shut up jew.
Evan Gomez
Spic, actually. better luck next time faggot.
Jacob Rivera
So in the absence of state funding, do you think that the Jewish behavior would change? Do you think they would not still behave in a tribalistic manner? Do you think businesses they own would not favor Jews over non-Jews? I can see how some new businesses might be able to start up in competition with the Jew-controlled ones, but unless they are explicitly anti-tribalist/anti-Jewish some Jews will enter and subsequently favor the hiring of other Jews into that business, regardless of the presence or absence of a state.
