13dd6b No.572201
IT'S WAR
POST YOUR WAR TRACKS
71488e No.572203
Joint strikes being launched by the US, UK, and France, according to the BBC.
b36ca9 No.572206
Could Russia flatten those military bases that have US troops with missiles?
59232d No.572207
Really though, it's the beginning of warm weather. Of course now would be the time to start a war. Is anyone surprised?
411ea9 No.572210
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Seems like it's gonna be like last time so nothing's gonna come out of this except dick-waving.
13dd6b No.572211
>>572210
>bombing towns
>it's nothing
0a607f No.572213
>>572211
So I'm confused, is bombing civilians much more moral than gassing them? How does that work?
1e80e8 No.572215
>>572213
They don’t care, they think the cattle is stupid.
248378 No.572216
>>572214
Well shit. Here we go I guess.
b36ca9 No.572217
>>572214
so what happens if Russia doesn't do a thing?
b36ca9 No.572220
>>572219
why would they do that when they could flaten US troops in Syria?
c9c555 No.572221
>>572214
>fox news anal list says "stealth" B-1 are bombing syria
>some retard on twitter copies it
>a third retard in the retard chain redtexts it on /k/
Is it so hard to wait for confirmation?
>>572217
Bearing in mind that I don't even believe this is happening (it's just twitter buzz so far), I think as long as Russian interests aren't directly taken out they will respond in some asymmetric way.
In other words cyber warfare, taking out a CIA base in Afghanistan or Iraq, selling Kornet and Igla missiles to Mexican Cartel….
71488e No.572222
Am I the only on having issues with the captcha?
I've filled it out six times since this thread appeared.
b36ca9 No.572224
1d68f2 No.572226
>people yell at Trump to do something
>he does something
>Russian Air Force is activated
>"assad must pay" turns into "oh no this might be bad"
c9c555 No.572227
>>572222
Yes, me too. Fucking jim can't make a cookie work.
f291fa No.572228
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
OFFICIAL THREAD THEME
GLORIA TO MOTHER RUSSIA AND DEATH TO ALL ZIONISTS!!!
8ca692 No.572229
>>572226
Russian air force is apparently heading south.
I thought US bases were in the north
59232d No.572231
1d68f2 No.572232
>>572229
I'm guessing they're moving to intercept bombers over Damascus.
221918 No.572233
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>Trump pushes us towards WW3 cliff because of chemical attack staged by MI6 to protect our (((greatest ally)))
All aboard the happening train. Choo chooooo
b36ca9 No.572234
Is Assad even in Syria at this point?
b36ca9 No.572237
>>572236
What happens if Russia shoots down stealth aircraft?
750e09 No.572238
>>572237
More money to (((LMT))) and friends to develop stealth++ technology.
c6bc18 No.572239
>>572237
More angry arguments carried out at a snails pace here?
f095b4 No.572240
71488e No.572242
>>572237
An anon starts to repeatedly remind us that it was a Hungarian who led the SAM team that did it, not a Syrian.
0a607f No.572243
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>572236
WE'RE IN THE DANGER ZONE
>>572237
They get 20000 points and an extra life.
ded19d No.572247
>>572245
lame.
so did the "allied" strike force get in and out before russia could even respond?
MUH S400
b36ca9 No.572248
How much damage could Russian misisles do to Saudi Oil infrastructure?
71488e No.572251
>>572245
Until the next time that dastardly Assad uses chemical weapons, that is.
411ea9 No.572252
>>572247
I hope to god we get out but France and UK get bombed.
ded19d No.572253
>>572252
>I hope to god we get out but France and UK get bombed.
you're putting a lot of faith into a military that regularly sexually abuses their own infantryman in gay ways.
411ea9 No.572254
NOTHING TO SEE HERE MOVE ON
1d68f2 No.572255
FUCK THIS CAPTCHA
>>572251
>Syria in shambles
>dead bodies in the street
>ISIS being fought off through the night and into the morning
>chemical weapons attack happens in buttfuck nowhere and is attributed to assad yet again
How much do you want to bet?
1e80e8 No.572256
>>572252
Wouldn’t mind Paris getting nuked tbqhsth
ded19d No.572257
>>572247
>>572247
>>572247
>>572247
can someone answer me fucking this. you retards shill for MUH S400. yet it didn't stop the "allied" bombing worth shit. not one report of an "allied" fighter/bomber down.
MUH S400 MUH AK47 MUH T-90
i just hate slavaboos.
c6bc18 No.572258
>>572256
I wouldn't mind them taking London, Birmingham and Bradford at this point.
13dd6b No.572259
JUST IN: Senior pro-Assad official says if U.S.-led strikes are now over, attack will be seen as limited
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/984978351944355840
8ca692 No.572260
>>572245
>>572254
>over
What the fuck I thought they sent manned aircraft at least in my mind that means shits a little more serious I think in after the missiles. So did they just barely fly near the target, drop a load, then fuck off. I mean apparently there were several waves of missiles, but the manned flights were just one and done?
71488e No.572261
>>572256
>>572258
It would be better to avoid losing some of the things in cities like London and Paris.
What major European cities have the least irreplaceable culture and history?
f095b4 No.572262
>>572258
man im not far from brum, praying for this to happen. i figure after a week i can go loot.
>>572259
>>572260
Keep in mind all of these updates will be confused/delayed. it may already be over or it may infact be continuing and syria considers it war.
1e80e8 No.572263
>>572258
Berlin and Frankfurt can go too tbh
59232d No.572266
>What major European cities have the least irreplaceable culture and history?
Madrid.
b36ca9 No.572268
>>572236
What happened to the days when Russia would give nuclear weapons to their allies such as Cuba?
010a02 No.572270
Is this more BASTE 88D chess?
Is Trump supporting Israel part of his plan to defeat world Jewry? /pol/ is basically leaf tier at this point, with the "If you kill your enemies they win" bullshit.
59232d No.572271
>>572268
That would end very badly and could be treated as an act of war.
2feeb2 No.572272
There's still airborne Slav jets that were unaccounted for, apparently flying south.
750e09 No.572274
>>572272
Were those confirmed, or just some Twitter dude saying stuff?
b36ca9 No.572275
>>572271
What about flattening the Saudi's oil production infrastructure such as the refineries?
How many red blooded Americans would want to save the Saudis?
Wouldn't such an attack harm the US due to gas price?
2406ca No.572276
>>572270
The only 14^88D chess Trump ever played was getting /pol/, the only real opponent to the system, full of Redditors and boomers over social media becoming another piece of controlled opposition.
b36ca9 No.572277
>>572274
Is there a website where we could monitor air traffic?
e69c84 No.572278
>>572272
Weren't some missiles coming from Jordan?
750e09 No.572279
>>572275
To an extent, it would harm us. However, gas prices don't affect us as much as the 70s or even the early 2000s.
>>572278
Probably launched through there to avoid SAMs
2feeb2 No.572280
Eh, not sure what to think on this one. It's really looking like a rerun of last year, but there really isn't enough reliable info out.
248378 No.572281
>>572277
You can use WebSDR to monitor what goes down here in America, but not over there I'm afraid.
http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901
493e08 No.572284
>>572277
https://twitter.com/AircraftSpots
Twitter account used by Liveuamap to report notable air activity.
c9c555 No.572286
>>572229
Goy Force is coming in via Turkey, Jordan, Israel and Iraq.
Russia is coming in via Caspian sea by air and Mediterranean sea via a port.
So far Russia seems to have been warned ahead of time and cleared the airspace for the strikes. Russian airplanes heading south might be hitting symmetrical targets in Iraq.
>>572247
>>572257
Look at the map, strikes in Damascus were carried out from Israeli airspace. Strikes in Aleppo via Turkish airspace. S-400 doesn't cover those areas.
Also Russia permitted this airstrike, they were called and asked for access so…
1e80e8 No.572287
>>572282
>>572283
Hey croat, you think we will end up in same squad?
757a6a No.572288
>IT'S WAR
<it's actually another "surgical strike" for Trump to save face
b36ca9 No.572289
>>572286
so Is Russia going to produce more aircraft now?
2feeb2 No.572290
>>572287
>implying we won't return to Petar Krešimir IV-tier and go back to bullying Italy's ashes for fun
A brate.
c9c555 No.572291
>chlorine gas
Can be made from pic related. I doubt any national government could be prevented from making it, even Liberia could do it.
If this chemical strike occurred, it was carried out by ISIS.
8ca692 No.572292
>>572286
>So far Russia seems to have been warned ahead of time
Got source on that? I've seen other sources say that Mattis said that Russia hasn't been warned this time.
221918 No.572293
General Mattis: "A little over double the weapons used" in tonight's airstrikes compared to last year's airstrike on Shayrat airbase.
2feeb2 No.572294
>>572292
According to Mattis, they were told to clear the airspace, but weren't told about the strikes.
221918 No.572295
Statement by the Ambassador Antonov on the strikes on #Syria:
A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.
All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.
f291fa No.572296
>>572286
the fuck kind of retarded map is that?
1e80e8 No.572297
1e80e8 No.572298
b36ca9 No.572299
>>572295
Paris? It sounds like ww1
c9c555 No.572300
>>572292
They weren't warned about targets, but airspace was deconflicted.
That basically means Russians were called and told about our intent to attack, we then waited for them to confirm their aircraft were grounded. It's the same phone line that prevents WWIII,
>>572296
>im going to spend 3 hours on bing images searching for a map thats both simple and shows the region as i want it
fuck that, deal with the map
c9c555 No.572302
8e37a8 No.572303
>>572257
Because it's highly likely Russia and Syria knew whose bombers were coming in and reasoned it would be better to suffer a few bomb strikes than to shoot down a jet and start an actual war with ZOG and Co.
>>572291
They've used chlorine gas IEDs in Iraq, and the original "sarin attack" was an absolute text book chlorine gas attack. The western media lied. You can google the exact symptoms they described and come up with chlorine gas yet they still said sarin.
644795 No.572304
The simulation might have forgotten believability but at least they pumped up the cinematography.
c9c555 No.572305
A pre-designed scenario is being implemented.
We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences. All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.
inb4 Los Zetas sporting surface to air missiles, anti tank missiles, land mines, and tanks
inb4 MS13 gets new shipments of submachine guns and hand grenades
2feeb2 No.572306
Huh, emergency UN Council coming up soon, Russia has a chance to dump proofs. Hopefully the (((greatest ally))) gets sent to the shadow realm. But remember, they expect one of us in the wreckage brother.
1e80e8 No.572307
>>572306
Why my Rakija explode when put in fire?
2feeb2 No.572308
>>572307
Don't know, ask the local Serbs. One of them is a brainlet though.
36d9e5 No.572309
FUCKING BASED!!!!!1!1!!1!!1!
1e80e8 No.572310
8ca692 No.572311
>>572294
>>572300
Well fuck if this isn't the gayest start to a war if there even will be one. assuming the russian response >>572295 >>572301 >>572305 is just something equally lame like just giving assad more gear and assistance but not shooting
>>572305
>mexican cartels getting armed
Well shit thanks then Vlad. Probably get more people to demand a wall or even some kind of private security chuckle fucks getting hired to shoot beans.
221918 No.572312
>As our commander in chief, the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend (((important U.S. national interests.)))
c9c555 No.572313
>>572311
I fully expect a lot of butthurt coming up.
88a803 No.572314
>>572307
>krvat
>rakija
>implying
Croatian national drink is italian wine and belgian semen.
4b7692 No.572315
>>572296
Constantinople is Greek, anon.
b36ca9 No.572316
>>572312
It's never "national defense" it's always "national interests".
221918 No.572317
Strikes hit Syria as country had 'chance for peaceful future': Moscow
578e2b No.572319
>>572201
>world on the brink of WW3
>tfw taking SDF reservist examination right now
>tfw I'll either die for Israel or get killed by a Chinese chinkdong type 2 ICBM
>all I wanted was to get basic rifle training and play Vidya
Can I still book flights to Russia? Thinking of defecting when push comes to shove; I speak Cyka and Borsitch bit that's about it.
http://eng.mil.ru/en/career/soldiering/conditions.htm
1e80e8 No.572320
>>572314
Lewd
>>572319
AB GEHT DIE LUTZI HOP HOP WIR ZIEHEN IN DAS FELD
f095b4 No.572321
>>572319
nip nongs still have to guard norkland and vostok, you'll be kept onna base in your home islands for a long time as a minor power reservist. keep calm.
e49f0d No.572322
DO IT! JUST DO IT! RUSSIA, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? JUST DO IT!
>WW3
WHEN??
>>572319
>>all I wanted was to get basic rifle training
>fighting for ZOG
>ever
Once and for all, has this saying ever been closer to the truth.
2feeb2 No.572323
Welp, off to bed now, and if I don't wake up within the next 17 hours, I want you to know that I'm shitposting in heaven with Yukari
b1de45 No.572324
>>572275
Isn't the Saudi oil industry privatised?
>How many red blooded Americans would want to save the Saudis?
>Wouldn't such an attack harm the US due to gas price?
Well, you kinda answered your own question there. That would cause a decrease in supply of oil and oil products, driving up the price. Now, an increase in oil and petrol prices basically means a huge increase in costs of production in virtually every field of human enterprise, especially in food and food-related industries (and generally any perishable good that's widely distributed). Moreso in the american meat, dairy and vegetables market which has been historically heavily reliant on fast transport.
This would also mean a big upwards shift in burger supply curve (which includes not only processed meat, but also onions, are traditionally topped with tomatoes and lettuce, and whose buns are made of flour), increasing its price and decreasing the amount of burgers available.
On the one hand, burgers are a staple food in the United States, and take up a large portion of the family budget. Furthermore, they are a neccecity for your average American, meaning their demand is highly price-inelastic. So an increase in price would badly hurt the American pocket as a whole.
Furthermore, this means your average American can afford less to spens on other goods and services that are not burger-related, which could negatively affect all other aspects of the American industry and economy as a whole, which is already pressed due the to increase in production costs.
Finally, burgers are part of the American identity, a cultural symbol, if not the cultural symbol of America. Any attack on burgers can, and will be interperted as an attack on American culture, American heritage and the whole American way of life, and therefore cannot and will not go unpunished and will not be tolerated, neither by the American public, nor the American statesmen.
Also, stop reddit-spacing.
1e80e8 No.572325
>>572323
Nacht, schlaf gut.
c9c555 No.572326
>>572319
Dont worry, Russia will come to you.
248378 No.572327
>>572323
I expect a full report on what her hair feels and smells like when I get there
221918 No.572328
Trudeau being faggot as usual
88a803 No.572329
>>572271
>us gives nukes to turkroaches, belgians, dutch, germs and italians
>nothing
>russia gives nukes to cuba
>OMG HOW DARE YOU ACT OF WAR
lel
c9c555 No.572331
>>572328
He's basically just a puppet saying whatever he's told to say. The few times he tries actually doing something independent, like when he tried blackmailing the Chinese into accepting feminism, he fails spectacularly.
221918 No.572332
Reports that B-1Bs used in airstrikes all used JASSM missiles. This is the first time they have been used in combat
c9c555 No.572333
>>572332
Most of them were striking Syrian air defense positions. Apparently Russian air defenses were both out of range and we struck a deal not to hit them.
The funny thing is that on twitter I'm seeing a lot of chatter about how most of the strikes were aimed at Hezbollah positions. It's fucking hilarious how much NATO serves Jizzrael.
5ca4ac No.572336
>>572201
OY GEVALT, GOOD GOYIM
b36ca9 No.572337
>>572332
how bad would had the losses been if they didn't use cruise missiles and went right over Syria?
221918 No.572339
8e37a8 No.572340
>>572337
Not any worse because Syria isn't looking to give Israel pretense to actually invade.
221918 No.572342
United Nations, April 14 (IANS) UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned of the danger of a full-blown military escalation in Syria.
"Increasing tensions and the inability to reach a compromise in the establishment of an accountability mechanism (for chemical weapons use in Syria) threaten to lead to a full-blown military escalation," Guterres told the Security Council on Friday, Xinhua news agency reported.
248378 No.572343
>>572339
>Even Alex Jones knows when to drop Trump.
5ca4ac No.572345
>>572339
>those comments
I get people don't like him and he may or may not be controlled op, but that malice is completely unwarranted and downright abhorrent.
e9b518 No.572346
I hope it's not another false alarm.
7515bd No.572350
>>572257
>MUH T-90
Daily reminder a T-90 has shrugged off a TOW in Syria multiple times.
>>572319
>defecting
You're a faggot and the chinks have no real force projection.
dc26cb No.572351
>>572345
Alex Jones is pretty great if you don't take what he says seriously and look at him more like a right wing version of the daily show. Amusing guy controlled op or not
e49f0d No.572352
>>572336
>that face
I thought that was a shop for a second, until I played the gif. Holy shit.
909815 No.572354
>>572228
>Glory to Russia
>USA Flag
When SHTF we're coming for you first.
c9c555 No.572358
909815 No.572360
>>572358
hurr durr da (((jewz)))
Go home /pol/ I don't care
0867c6 No.572364
>>572343
>Alex Jones is more redpilled than cuck/pol/
I mean already knew this but…
c9c555 No.572371
>>572360
>if you hate jews you must be a gnasi!
Just have common sense.
0867c6 No.572373
>>572336
HE'S LITERALLY LE HAPPY MERCHANT.
54d5ba No.572374
GOOD LUCK ASSAD
DOWN AS MANY US JETS AS YOU CAN
KILL AS MANY YANKS AS POSSIBLE
aaa2f2 No.572376
DEATH TO AMERICA
>>572354
>>572360
Keep sucking Israel's cock mongrel
ee7505 No.572378
>>572241
>digging track
>get to the piano part
7515bd No.572379
>>572376
Death to all Jews would be preferable, then things can fix themselves in the way they see fit.
8e37a8 No.572381
>>572380
>civilian casualties from US strike
Oh-ho, here comes the political shitstorm.
650fa3 No.572384
>>572381
Nothing will happen because of this; three injuries is hardly noteworthy.
8e37a8 No.572385
>>572384
Of course not, but "Drumpf airstrike hurts three poor refugees in the making" is the kind of shit the MSM will run with screeching.
b467b8 No.572386
>>572384
That's the point. Deep state/yids btfo
bea553 No.572391
010a02 No.572393
>>572386
Fuck off back to /pol/ you retard. It isn't the "deep state", it's the fucking Trump administration.
I can't believe after all this, some dumb fucks still support Donald "All my kids are yids" Trump.
4a3def No.572396
I think everyone will appreciate this:
>>>/pol/11488888
4a3def No.572397
>>572395
More like POORtoGulls amirite?
4a3def No.572399
>>572386
If we nuke Israel wtf will we put the diaspora for extermination (inb4 Ireland)?
e49f0d No.572400
>>572397
How will I ever recover11!!!1!!111
4a3def No.572402
>>572400
tbh, with soy you won't mind being a bottom.
44cc18 No.572405
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
Might as well mention that today we will have a protest with potentially up to 100 000 people or more at Budapest. Don't get your hopes up, but this could lead to a political crisis, or even a civil war.
010a02 No.572406
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>572405
Nani? What's the protest about?
010a02 No.572407
>>572406
Nevermind, I'm retarded and just looked it up.
0a607f No.572408
>>572396
I think everyone will appreciate this much more since it was posted by the same person.
>>>/pol/11489076
7c62d1 No.572409
So,what are the chances this dick-waving escalates to full out war?
I cant imagine both USA and Russia would go to war over that shithole
0a607f No.572410
>>572409
Depends on whether this satisfied Bolton's murderboner and on whether or not there's another gas attack, or fake gas attack.
f500d1 No.572412
>>572410
>A man in Idlib sneezes
>mummy May, Macron, and Trump hold talks
>$60m is spent turning dirt
>MiC stocks go up
7c62d1 No.572413
>>572410
What's his end game?
He's pushing for war with Russia,that can't be good.
Russia can't win an offensive war against NATO and NATO can't win an offensive war against Russia.
0a607f No.572415
>>572413
>What's his end game?
He's a neocon that loves war and regime change.
326157 No.572417
>>572413
>>572201
Russian MoD briefing is in. https://hooktube.com/watch?v=lzq4x-dr8lQ
103 missiles were fired – 71 shot down/disabled
Details are
airbases aimed/disabled
Duvall - 4 of 4
Doumeir - 12 of 12
Bley - 18 of 18
Shayrat - 12 of 12
Mezzeh (Unused.) - 5 of 9
Homs - 13 of 16
Buildings in the suburbs Barca (or Barz?) and Jeramani were hit - 7 out of 30. However there were no military assets there, no staff, no equipment (a civilian report, says there was 3 civilians casualties).
The Brits fired 8 missiles, the rest are US. Nearly all of them were intercept by Syrian own AD as possibly the US tried to avoid Russians AD zones.
Russia will now reconsider Syria's request for S-300 (and not only Syria) which was suspended previously on the request of Western "partners".
The king is naked for all to see.
44cc18 No.572418
>>572406
>>572407
For those who aren't aware might as well write it down here: Orbán and co managed to cheat so much during the elections that Fidesz got 2/3 of the seats again, even though according to polls they would have been lucky if they had a slim majority. Although it looks like they too want this protest to happen, so that they can cry about "Soros agents". Apparently from now on I too will be one of them, as I will go and join the fun.
999b9f No.572419
>>572201
Anyone have that Bathist's last stand? The WEBM thread doesn't have it anymore.
c6bc18 No.572423
>>572418
Is the choice now just Orban or internationalists?
b2c128 No.572425
>>572417
Any idea how the Russians shot down or disabled the missiles?
>>572418
What's wrong with Orban? I wish Trump would finally build the damn wall and close the border like Orban did.
93848a No.572426
>>572417
What was even the point of this whole thing? Trump could have just used WHERE ARE THE PROOFS-card and avoided this whole pointless dickwaving contest. Now he has made a complete fool of himself.
010a02 No.572428
>>572426
>What was even the point of this whole thing?
Greater Israel.
326157 No.572429
>>572425
>Any idea how the Russians shot down or disabled the missiles?
The Syrian did, coordinated by the Russians.
As to how, they shot at them.
Why do you people believe this is hard to do is beyond me.
Air defense missiles, even very old ones, can shoot down a supersonic fighter without problems, that's literally what they're supposed to do. Why the fuck would it be hard for them to shoot down something way slower?
Hell feed radar and computer data to a fucking mounted WWI relic like the M2 (on a unmanned turret) and it can shoot down a NATO cruise missile without real issues. By hand it's gonna be much harder but it's in the realm of doable if you know where it's gonna be.
The only reason cruise missiles strike were effective in the past is because of the massive EW support made EA-6A prowler, EF-111A Raven that were fucking with 70's era soviet radars and Jaguars and Wild Weasel were on the prowl to fuck up air defense targeting them with Anti-Radiation missiles.
Were is all that shit now?
>Lol we don't need them we have stealth.
NATO has been consistently pissing away all it's advantages over Russians systems. And Russia didn't go away as they had planned.
>>572426
>Implying Trump had any idea that was going to go that way.
NATO leaders believe their own propaganda, largely served by the US military/industrial complex.
I'm not even sure they won't believe this is indeed a crippling blow and parade on how effective it was!
cfdb89 No.572430
Help me find more images of wreckage. I wanna be sure if russkies aren't inflating their wins a little.
44cc18 No.572432
>>572423
>Is the choice now just Orban or internationalists?
Orbán isan internationalist, just in the same way the strong men of third world countries are. That is, he acts high and mighty, but his power depends on the gibsmedat from the West. He of course needs those to steal them and give them to his clienture. For an alternative we'd have Jobbik who at the very least didn't have nearly a decade to shove their lackeys into every government position, therefore they couldn't just do nothing but steal money, they'd have to actually make some economic reforms.
>>572425
>What's wrong with Orban?
His idea of governing a country is stealing money and acting like he is a saviour of the huwite race. Meanwhile they had a program of selling specail government bonds that give citizenship, and they let in 20 000 foreigners that way. They also accepted 1300 "refugees" from the EU. That "wall" is just some chicken wire with cameras. What is even worse is that the people serving there are living like soldiers during ww1, they don't even have proper tents, just flimsly shit build from wood and plastic garbage. It also showed that our army is an incredibly shitty state, because putting a few people to our southern border nearly crippled their logistics. And they had 8 years to do something with the situation.
7c62d1 No.572433
>>572415
Oh,so neocon being neocon then.
Out of curiosity,whats the political climate in USA?
Would USA citizens actually support war with Russia?
or even China?
>>572417
>>572429
Always a pleasure to read your posts frenchanon,I find your autism informative posts to be quite an entertaining read
Keep up the god's work
326157 No.572436
>>572430
It's early afternoon in Syria. Past midday in France and UK.
The strikes happened deep in the night (in syria). We should have the footage of the missiles and precision strikes by now in a typical NATO fashion (unless they keep them for the US morning briefing, we'll see), all we have is footage of launches.
That alone make me think that the Russians probably aren't lying (maybe they will show some soon).
93848a No.572439
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
RU-MOD briefing with english subtitles.
88a803 No.572444
>>572439
>imaginary chemical attacks
>the strikes were performed that very day when special commission of the OPWC should begin its work
>there are no chemical weapons production facilities in Syria
These Russians are hilarious.
c9c555 No.572445
>>572430
Russians didn't shoot anything down, all of the missiles deliberately avoided their air defense range.
Also about 30-40 missiles were launched per every target, that is a fuckload and even if Syria stopped 80% it still wouldn't be enough. The fact that an apartment building was hit suggests some electronic warfare was used to confuse missile targeting, also the images of crashed missiles suggest some were taken out by air defenses.
>>572429
>Why the fuck would it be hard for them to shoot down something way slower?
Because altitude interferes with radar lock and cruise missiles can plot paths that use terrain as shield. Buk system has a .95 intercept rate for a fighter at 10km altitude, but only .3 chance against helicopters. And Buk is relatively close range system.
This is why Pantsir was invented and given to Syria, specifically to defeat threats such as cruise missiles. Also why S-400 is special.
1e80e8 No.572447
>>572444
They say the truth
0bb131 No.572448
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>572211
>bombing towns
THE CAPITAL CITY
88a803 No.572451
326157 No.572452
>>572445
>.3 chance against helicopters.
Against helicopters standing still which is a different problem since all targeting radars are especially configured to track moving objects beyond a certain speed, which is why IR/TV tracking is used for helicopters rather than radars.
Against moving helicopters it's .9.
>>572447
Threadly reminder to systematically block 000000 ID.
88a803 No.572453
>>572452
>Ready. Fire. Aim.
I was agreeing with him.
c096c0 No.572454
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Civil war is second best kind war, only bested by genocide. Commies and anarchists shall be piled up like trash and burned to ashes.
b74e82 No.572455
>>572417
Your posts never disappoint. Sometimes I fantasize you are a woman and that someday you would get to be my autist gf
c9c555 No.572457
>>572452
I assure you it doesn't work that way, and even if it did the movement of a helicopters blades would be enough for a lock. Specifically against cruise missiles a Buks efficacy is .6 to .7, it's just a fact of radar air defense that low flying targets are harder to hit.
d35886 No.572458
>>572433
Well, Fox news is advocating for peace for the first time in my life. I personally don't know anyone that is for war with any country at this point. As for the climate, I can't speak for the rest of the country, but where I am, we are more concerned with guns and fuck Cali. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if we started drifting towards isolationism.
a38de9 No.572459
>>572417
>>572429
>>572436
>>572452
French anon best anon.
>>572455
Creepy but if true there will be a /k/ murder brawl to claim the waifu
b8bc45 No.572462
>>572454
>and anarchists
>being a bootlicking statist cuck LARPer
We're on /k/, dipshit, we're all anar/k/ists
a38de9 No.572464
>>572462
I thought we were a thinly veiled NSA, CIA, and FBI sting operation all rolled into one?
bea553 No.572467
>>572462
This board is 18+
010a02 No.572469
>>572459
>but if true there will be a /k/ murder brawl to claim the waifu
No need gentlemen, we all know that she belongs to me. Run along now.
b74e82 No.572475
>>572469
I guess I'll have to bring my emu
b1de45 No.572478
>>572459
>>572469
Dibs on the Jap. The hapa, not the argie.;<)
d4c101 No.572479
Pentagon: Syrian chemical weapons capabilities """crippled""" for years
https://twitter.com/WaelAlRussi/status/985150533496377345
a38de9 No.572482
>>572469
>A fucking Australian
I'll spoon you mate!
b1de45 No.572484
>>572479
Wouldn't this claim detract from their ability to stage a falseflag/ attribute a gas attack to Assad every time some goatfucker lets out a noxious fart?
0543be No.572485
>>572455
>Sometimes I fantasize you are a woman and that someday you would get to be my autist gf
From behind anyone is a woman just believe hard enough.
a38de9 No.572486
>>572484
>Implying that's not part of their plan
But they'll just find another false flag if they can't use their gas line anymore
c096c0 No.572487
>>572462
We're a NatSoc board and always will be. Kill yourself, subhuman. We won't leave a single one of you left breathing, traitor. Bunch of weakling limp-dick faggots who are unpatriotic pieces of worthless scum, want everything for free and whine like little babies when they can't do whatever they want, as if they were young children.
592dd0 No.572489
>>572487
fucking greeks. /k/ is a board for anyone who believes in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and anyone who isnt a tremendous and absolute fucking faggot, like you
a38de9 No.572493
>>572487
>Greek poster
>Has a pic of a boy getting fucked up the ass
Checks out
>>572489
It's a weapons board in general. Such as deadly assault spoons and planning on stealing to plunder the seven seas looking for precious dragon dildos.
b74e82 No.572494
>>572485
>From behind anyone is a woman just believe hard enough.
t. Sweden
No surprise here
a38de9 No.572495
a1eb13 No.572496
>>572418
It's hard to explain to rightwing fags in the US that it's cool Orbon and his party keep Somalia nigs out but he is also a corrupt piece of shit
c096c0 No.572497
>>572489
Perhaps you're right, not every anon has to be full natsoc, but we can't have literal anarchist subhumans here thinking they're welcome. b8bc45 is the kind of poster who deserves to be skinned alive, just like every other anarcuck.
ad3fab No.572498
>>572487
>rooooooooo! All anarchists are antifa!
/k/ isn't exclusively NEETSoc by any reasonable measure, like >>572489 says it's for anyone that likes funs and hates the lefties trying to take them. We do have a few more lolbergs here than average too, because there are strong connections between liberty and owning guns also because /liberty/ is a shit board with a BO that lets lefties run rampant, but it's not a lolberg board either. Just a place to discuss weapons.
>>572497
You do realize that most people who call themselves anarchists on imageboards are ancaps and similar, right? Not commies?
f75263 No.572499
I'm sick of the fag US dropping bombs like they're cumshots in their gay nightclubs. Fag nation, fag army
b8bc45 No.572501
>>572487
You just described commies, not anarchists, you dumbcunt
>hurr durr but anarcho-commies
"Anarcho-communism" can't and doesn't exist. The moment you start collectivising, eradicating private and personal property, and starting communes you stop being anarchist. Also
>Greek calling anybody else subhuman
WEW
411ea9 No.572506
>>572433
Nobody wants war and nobody wants troops in the middle-east anymore except neocon politicians.
c096c0 No.572507
>>572501
>Actual anarchist
You're a rare one, I'd be surprised if there were more than 1,000 of you still left. The average 'anarchist' today is a nucommie. But it doesn't matter anyway, you're both utter trash
ad3fab No.572508
>>572507
>You're a rare one, I'd be surprised if there were more than 1,000 of you still left.
Again you doublenigger, most "anarchists" that you'll find here are ancap, not ancomms with daddy issues. And most of the ancaps are of the Hoppean variety rather than libertines.
c9c555 No.572509
>>572462
>>572501
And the moment you form your perfect stateless utopia some other group of people with enough sense to organize will steamroll you militarily or economically.
>inb4
>hurrr people can voluntarily organize into systems even more complex than a state
No they fucking can't, not in groups over a few hundred people, humans simply haven't evolved for that. If you want humans to voluntarily organize into state-like unions, you would have to genetically engineer humans into bee people.
Gfy.
71488e No.572510
>>572509
Have you considered that there are options other than "government is omnipotent" and "government does not exist"?
c096c0 No.572511
>>572508
>most "anarchists" that you'll find here are ancap and blah blah blah blahh
You seriously go through the effort to learn their little differences? They're all the same kind of trash. I don't fucking care in which retarded shitty version he believes in. If he's left-wing then he's trash. That's all there is to it. Now fuck off.
Sage for off-topic. We can go back to war songs now.
71488e No.572513
>>572511
>anarcho-capitalists are left wing
This is your brain on Turk semen.
ad3fab No.572514
>>572509
>And the moment you form your perfect stateless utopia some other group of people with enough sense to organize will steamroll you militarily or economically.
>militarily or economically
>economically
I can understand some people on here thinking the former (I'd still think they were wrong, but the argument is much sounder), but what kind of faggot are you? Commies have shown time and time again that central planning doesn't work for shit, and the Keynesian retards have shown that even """moderated""" manipulation of the economy is doomed to failure.
>>572511
>If he's left-wing then he's trash.
>he thinks ancaps are left-wing
You're a special kind of retard aren't you?
c096c0 No.572521
>>572513
>>572514
>The leaf and the burger think that ancaps aren't absolute left-leaning trash
They're left-wing parasites and you can't prove me otherwise. They might not be as braindead as communists but they're really fucking close. I would never consider these retards to be right-wing, ever.
b8bc45 No.572522
>>572521
Do you and your underdeveloped brain not understand what anarco-capitalism is?
ad3fab No.572523
>>572521
>They're left-wing parasites and you can't prove me otherwise.
<small government
<pro-guns
<pro private property
That last one means, among other things, supporting the physical removal of niggers from your property if you don't want them there, freedom to discriminate and evict your clientele based on whatever criteria you choose. Nothing about this is left-wing in the slightest, you utter tard.
aaa2f2 No.572524
>>572521
Shut up and pay debts
d6bd4c No.572526
>when the fat backstabbing cuck in chief directly provokes the conflict you knew Hillary would but hoped he wouldn't
Whatever, the planet needs a cleanse anyway.
b1de45 No.572528
>>572526
Little hope of an actual cleansing-tier conflict. At best another Obama/ Hilary tier regional conflict
I just hope Pissrael gets the short end of the stick.
7c62d1 No.572534
>>572458
Damn,too bad about gun legislation.
I truly do believe fun gun ownership in USA is,by far,its greatest defense,have fun invading a country that has more guns than people.
099080 No.572535
>>572534
It's impossible to invade USA or Russia. They can only bomb and nuke eachother.
237d46 No.572537
>>572522
>>572523
>2008+10
>still being a lolberg faggot
>>>/4chan/
b8bc45 No.572538
>>572537
>being a /pol/edditor LARPer
How is being a trumpcuck working out for you?
237d46 No.572545
>>572538
This is where you sound no different to your "enemy" cattle. You are a wayward animal seeking to be put down.
11c301 No.572546
493e08 No.572556
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Another thread turned to shit by /pol/. It's been over an hour since the US account of the strikes and nobody's mentioned it. Skip 3:30 in to skip the kvetching.
>>572417
>>572429
US is claiming they employed an undisclosed number of EA aircraft during the strikes. Also claiming that there were only 3 targets, 2 of which look predominantly underground, so fuck knows if they were legit weapon storage sites. Most bizarrely, they claim that none of the missiles were successfully engaged, and that Syrian Air Defense only fired 40 missiles, without guidance, after the strikes. Russia's probably exaggerating, America's probably exaggerating, fuck this shit about maximizing political messaging at the expense of military fact; I can't think of how else to figure the success rate of the missiles.
365a83 No.572558
>>572305
inb4 La Raza becomes Mexican IRA
a38de9 No.572559
>>572556
>Everyone exaggerating about what happened while (((ISIS))) laughs
What else is new?
8e37a8 No.572561
>>572559
Is that boogeyman even alive anymore or did Syrian and Iraqi forces finally kill them all?
163e28 No.572562
>>572556
In their defense telling the truth would be stupid for strategic reasons. Presumably neither side is 100% sure exactly what the other side did so if you announce the unvarnished facts about your persepctive on the operation then you're giving the other guy free intel.
Kind of an argument against standing armies in my opinion, but that horse left the barn a long time ago.
1e80e8 No.572567
>>572561
They are still kicking around to secure some clay for their masters
365a83 No.572568
>>572498
>>572501
>Ancraps
Anarchy isn't just "hurr, no gubment". Its complete absence of hierarchy. And capitalism is hierarchy.
0a607f No.572571
>>572568
>Anarchy isn't just "hurr, no gubment". Its complete absence of hierarchy.
Not when Ancaps are talking about it it isn't.
b8bc45 No.572573
>>572568
>capitalism is hierarchy
365a83 No.572575
>>572573
>Working for a boss isn't hierarchy
0bb131 No.572576
>>572498
You do realize that even ancaps are retarded because i can succeed in free market and then amass enough capital to spend on social engineering and/or hiring mercenaries for a take over?
Every competition ends at some point
>>572522
>what if child consents tho - The ideology
capitalism is great, until someone gets enough money for assassinating competition and PR to make up for it.
Enjoy getting stomped on by organized groups who forsaken their individuality to accomplish some goals every member agrees with
33c10e No.572577
Holy lel, NEETSocs truly are furries of politics.
>>572567
Yeah, they threw away their edgy black flags and call themselves Syrian Democratic Forces now and secure oilfields and clay together with the Kurds so the US can build bases and occupy Syrian clay illegally.
d511e7 No.572578
>>572555
>muh helicopters
>trump says something about helicopters
>this causes his base that totally is not full of lolbergs to sperg out in ecstasy
d6c7d1 No.572581
>>572575
>the only system where you can declare yourself your own boss, and choose not to participate at all.
>hierarchie is inherent in it.
ad3fab No.572582
>>572568
False. No rulers doesn't mean no rules, and most anarchists don't have a moronic aversion to hierarchy/order/whatever.
>>572576
>You do realize that even ancaps are retarded because i can succeed in free market and then amass enough capital to spend on social engineering and/or hiring mercenaries for a take over?
Because that's an incredibly wasteful and ineffective way of doing things, and is stopped rather easily by other market actors. You can only maintain the income to propagate something so abjectly retarded if you have a compulsory monopoly, which is to say taxes.
>Every competition ends at some point
No, zero-sum games must end at some point. The market isn't a zero-sum game and it's stupid to think of it in those terms.
<what if child consents tho - The ideology
lol no. Rothbard and most ancap theorists rightly point out that children aren't developed enough to understand the consequences of consenting, and must have parents or guardians to safeguard them from ill-advised contracts until they come of age.
>capitalism is great, until someone gets enough money for assassinating competition and PR to make up for it.
Again, this is an extremely wasteful and inefficient way to operate in the market, anyone who acts like this will forfeit all of their clientele and influence.
<Enjoy getting stomped on by organized groups who forsaken their individuality to accomplish some goals every member agrees with
>Only governments can organize people
b8bc45 No.572584
>>572575
It isn't
>>572576
>>what if child consents tho - The ideology
>children can consent
365a83 No.572587
>>572584
>Having someone above you isn't hierarchy
It is. That's the definition of hierarchy. Explain to me how cooperate structure, or really any private business isn't hierarchy? Explain how capitalism isn't hierarchy, and no; hierarchy isn't just when the state does stuff.
27258f No.572588
>>572213
It's better than spraying agent orange on them, though that wouldn't hurt too much as well.
d6c7d1 No.572589
>>572587
If my boss tells me "eat my shit off this plate or your fired" I can say "no thank you, eat it yourself" and leave. If he tells all of his employees that, they will most likely do the same and leave. The business collapses from below and is gone.
Comrade stalin tells you "eat my shit or else" you as a member of the workers revolution must eat that shit or face a worse punishment then not. You have no logical choice. Choice is where hierarchical structures are defined. If you have choice, you are not a slave. If you have no choice, you are a slave. This includes anarchy, where you have no choice but to not organize in the form of a state. You're a slave.
365a83 No.572591
>>572589
It's still hierarchy. You can work for assholes, or starve.
d6c7d1 No.572592
>>572591
If starvation is where you define hierarchy, anarchy has a history of more of that then capitalism. Once again, you fail.
365a83 No.572595
>>572592
Way to miss the point. Hierarchy is any system with a boss. Being able to leave doesn't make it less of a hierarchy. If you leave your boss you'll end up working for another one
>inb4 self employed, or what if I am the boss
Not everyone can be the boss.
365a83 No.572598
>>572592
>That cartoon
Feudalism is the least bloody of that group.
b8bc45 No.572605
>>572595
>Hierarchy is any system with a boss
Wrong
>Being able to leave doesn't make it less of a hierarchy.
Wrong
>If you leave your boss you'll end up working for another one
Wrong
>Not everyone can be the boss.
And wrong.
Go cry about hierarchies where they don't exist back on /leftypol/, faggot
7515bd No.572608
>>572445
The real neato thing about the Russian AA systems is the newer shit interfaced with the older shit creating a web of oh god what
>>572419
52088b No.572613
File: fc42f819f470848⋯.mp4 (Spoiler Image, 14.15 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Gorgeous Czech Babes Make ….mp4)
Will Russia try to invade the Czech Republic in a proxy war?
1e80e8 No.572615
c9c555 No.572617
>>572510
None of those options are anarchy. Good job on shitting up the conversation mate.
>>572514
Moron the moment you form a business you've created a form of government.
e69c84 No.572619
>>572613
Okay, why the fuck is this webm/set of screenshots getting posted so much? It's been on /v/ a few times and now it's here.
b8bc45 No.572621
>>572617
>Moron the moment you form a business you've created a form of government.
52088b No.572622
>>572619
Doesn't look like the sameone to me, two different girls
0bb131 No.572623
>>572621
instead of taxes you pay McService fees™ it's completely different!
b8bc45 No.572624
>>572623
I can't begin to explain how fucking stupid you are.
ded19d No.572625
>>572556
>>572417
i'd wait after a little while to see what really happened. it's in russia and america's interest to lie.
d6c7d1 No.572634
ad3fab No.572635
>>572617
Fuck off commie.
>>572623
I'm really getting a lot of mileage out of this pic. If nothing else, I suppose I should be thankful that statist retards are kind enough to adopt the exact same moronic arguments time and time again.
2a883a No.572640
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria/u-s-says-air-strikes-cripple-syria-chemical-weapons-program-idUSKBN1HJ0ZS (https://archive.li/vQTQV)
>Russia had promised to respond to any attack on its ally, but the Pentagon said no Russian air defense systems were used. Syria fired 40 unguided surface to air missiles - but only after the Western strikes had ended, the Pentagon said.
>“We are confident that all of our missiles reached their targets,” McKenzie said.
<meanwhile >>572417
>103 missiles were fired – 71 shot down/disabled
What the fuck actually happened?
a1eb13 No.572645
>>572508
Every anarchist of any variety is a manchild with daddy issues. It's "fuck you dad!" The political ideology
45639e No.572646
I can hear nuclear weapon arming sounds coming from across the border
2a883a No.572647
>>572645
>not wanting some kike being able to control you = daddy issues
polite sage for off topic politics
c9c555 No.572661
>>572621
>>572624
lol you can't even begin to form a thought, because you're basically a dumb animal with a folder full of weeb pics smashing at a keyboard.
What's the matter, truth flying a bit over your head?
>>572640
Syria has Pantsir S1, it's more or less designed to hit cruise missiles. Kind of like the German Gepard but with missiles of its own.
c9c555 No.572663
>>572647
>if i give up all national cohesion and become a pure individualist, kikes can't control me
Can you explain how that opinion makes sense?
b8bc45 No.572664
>>572661
>he's still trying the psuedo-intellectual act
c9c555 No.572666
>>572664
You're still posting anime pictures like a fucking child.
Actually that's an insult to children, they have a hope of one day developing into adults. You have no such hope.
b8bc45 No.572667
>>572666
>he's still going
ad3fab No.572668
>>572663
>cultural identity only exists by government fiat
f14a98 No.572671
Lolbergs and /pol/eddit fuck off
3d97c1 No.572673
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>572233
Why are drummers always so fucking adorable autistic?
>>572640
Propaganda, mate. Neither side can be trusted.
The middle east is one massive cocktease. We literally had live pictures of guys riding camels into crowds and getting beat up by people with sticks in Egypt, but airstrikes, spec ops fighting spec ops, missiles and all the other cool shit we have to rely on "local sources" or "official statements". Both of which are extremely biased and will leave out/exaggerate information, change numbers and outright lie.
248378 No.572674
>>572671
This. This was a good thread until the "I'm more right wing than you" shouting match started.
b8bc45 No.572676
f14a98 No.572677
>>572674
It happens on pretty much any thread. Also when someone talks shit about anarchists here, they mean the soyboys throwing shit in the streets. Ancaps need to stop getting so triggered.
d2b4fa No.572678
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>572514
>Commies have shown time and time again that central planning doesn't work for shit, and the Keynesian retards have shown that even """moderated""" manipulation of the economy is doomed to failure.
Japan found a way.
0bb131 No.572679
>>572678
They also had a revolution that had no significant casualties, modernization that didn't result in loss of culture, amazing how much you can accomplish without jews but fair opponents keeping you from becoming complacent.
0bb131 No.572682
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>572680
>jew economist
>post a #1 jew lover
Here's another brilliant economist with semitic roots.
909815 No.572684
>>572376
I hope you enjoy your police state when GSG-9 is kicking down your door.
d2b4fa No.572685
>>572679
Don't forget the average IQ of 105 and the devotion that easily turns into fanatism. These two together do sound like autism now that I think about it…
>>572680
That narrative is cute, but wrong. Watch the documentary, Japan's etatist-mercantilist economy worked perfectly well until a new generation of Japanese bankers got educated in the USA, and decided to crash it with an artificial bubble.
c90368 No.572687
>>572257
>Lockheeb Martin has arrived
b8bc45 No.572688
>>572685
>it's a narrative because it counteracts my weak points and shitty documentary!
ad3fab No.572689
a145d3 No.572690
>>572685
The French economy worked that way as well and then May 1968 happened.
d2b4fa No.572693
>>572688
It doesn't counteract anything. It literally goes from
>Japan's World War II defeat left behind a barren rocky island whose industrial capacity, infrastructure, and labor force were devastated by Allied bombs. Japan's flattened cities and smoldering factories may have painted a gloomy future but Japan had the thing that mattered most — a population largely free to organize and rebuild.
to
> Legislators shielded Japan’s massive industrial base from foreign competition through protectionist tariffs and even subsidized some overseas exports. On the domestic front, nascent Japanese companies were heavily burdened by onerous regulations and very high taxes — this made it nearly impossible for start-ups to get off the ground and challenge the corporate establishment's market share.
Which is, again, cute, but wrong. Japan's industrial empires weren't built from the ashes of their cities, they exists exactly because of the government's way of using the central bank to prop up the industry sector-by-sector. It all happened in the decades leading up to the crash in 1986. And again, that crash was deliberately created via an artificial bubble. You can come up with twenty whateverism explanations for how it happened, but it doesn't matter when the people behind it knew that what they are doing will lead to a crash.
b8bc45 No.572699
>>572693
>they exists exactly because of the government's way of using the central bank to prop up the industry sector-by-sector.
>then the central bank fucks up
>"hurr this isn't proof centrally planned economies don't work"
f15397 No.572702
>>572562
>Kind of an argument against standing armies in my opinion, but that horse left the barn a long time ago.
How? Does having standing armies give everyone else free information?
0bb131 No.572704
>>572701
the turk admitted that trump was playing chess against americans all along
took him long enough
c9c555 No.572709
>>572667
What a passive aggressive soyboy faggot.
>>572689
>>572680
>calls me a commie
>spouts strawman
>turns out to be an actual kike
Fucking lol.
909815 No.572713
>>572690
The French nation worked well and then the French Revolution happened. If they had fucking listened to General Lafayette it wouldn't be such a shithole now.
ad3fab No.572716
>>572713
1698 is well over a century before the Revolution though.
88a803 No.572722
>>572576
>lol what if the (x) consents tho
>hehe I am so clever for mockingly asking a perfectly valid question, CHECKMATE anyone who triggers me
So what if I decide you can't consent?
365a83 No.572723
>>572605
>The textbook definition is wrong because otherwise my retarded political ideology would be wrong.
Fuck off, faggot. Ancaps are just as Talmudic as Marxists. Democracy and corporatism have failed just as spectacularly as communism. I can't wait till monarchy is restored and all flavors of anarchist teenager have molten aluminum poured in holes drilled in their skulls.
909815 No.572724
>>572716
>1698
I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. If the French Revolutionaries had listened to Lafayette's ideas after he came back from America the French would have been in such a better position when World War I and II started.
0bb131 No.572726
>>572722
>torPEDO
Children are unable to consent due to them lacking ability to understand consequences of their actions.
365a83 No.572727
>>572624
>>572621
>NSA steals your data
==FUCKING FASCIST STATIST MOTHERFUCKING DOG DICK SUCKING BASTARDS! 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!
>Facebook does it
>It's okay if a private company does it instead of the government.
>>572635
>Just an emanate property rights
Holy fuck, that's not arbitrary at all. Leave it to fucking retarded kike like Rothbard to come up with something like that.
365a83 No.572728
>>572621
In ancapistan they'd be the highest authority, therefor the new ruling class.
644795 No.572733
>>572640
All systems and participants performed worse than expected, everyone lies about it so they don't lose export sales.
163e28 No.572734
>>572702
If we didn't have a standing army we wouldn't have the vast government-corporate apparatus which does things like develop long term strategies and tech programs (muh military industrial complex). If your military is just the armed citizenry, you don't really have any big institutional secrets. Of course war has become so doctrinally and technologically sophisticated I'm not even sure you could do without some kind of standing military organization or what an alternative would look like. I'm not even sure how you can keep a military institution from indulging in all the stupid shit we're familiar with like politicizing doctrine, corrupting acquisitions, turning R&D programs into cash cows, petty infighting within the leadership, etc.
b8bc45 No.572739
>>572728
They aren't an authority, though, dipshit.
b8bc45 No.572740
>>572727
>>NSA steals your data
First off, the NSA wasn't stealing data it was wiretapping and monitoring web traffic of all Americans without any sort of warrant and stored all of this personal information and metadata. That isn't "stealing" data, that's collecting it.
>>Facebook does it
>>It's okay if a private company does it instead of the government.
It is, but guess what: people have a choice to not use Facebook, whereas there is no choice to not have your data forcibly collected by the NSA/CIA/FBI. It's nobody's fault but your own if you use Facebook, which considering your posts you probably do because you sound like a faggot. Please consider suicide.
365a83 No.572741
>>572739
>They're not an authority dipshit
>Regularly hired pinkertons to kill striking workers
How much of an absolute retard are you. If you have any small kids they need to die before they can contaminate the gene pool. Corporations have massive influence on the governing of most industrial nations.
>>572740
>They have a choice not to use it
Not if they become a monopoly
>Inb4 muh invisible hand will prevent it
Private industry is okay if kept in check by the possibility of your dogs being shot and your kids being burned with flash bangs, or "accidentally' shot by dorrkickers at 3 AM if you do some kike shit.
2a883a No.572743
>>572741
>Not if they become a monopoly
A monopoly on what?
remember to sage for off topic posts you nigger
365a83 No.572744
>>572743
Most of the goddamn internet.If there wasn't any anti-monopoly laws fuckerberg could own over 80% of the internet.
ad3fab No.572745
>>572723
>Democracy
>corporatism
Neither of these things are the free market.
>I can't wait till monarchy is restored
Ancaps tend to prefer monarchy over other forms of government, dipshit.
<Just an emanate property rights
>failing reading comprehension this hard
>In ancapistan they'd be the highest authority, therefor the new ruling class.
>I must now bow down and pay homage to my barber because he's a business owner
This is your brain on public education. I also find it amusing that you call us commies while you're the one kvetching about the bourgeoise hierarchical class of capitalists.
>Corporations have massive influence on the governing of most industrial nations.
Yes, exactly. Key word being governing, as in the government aggressing against citizens. The strikes and labor relations in general through the Gilded Age wouldn't have been nearly as shit if the National Guard (another state entity) was called in to disperse strikes.
>Not if they become a monopoly
How? Monopolies have only ever formed because of the state (the biggest monopoly of them all) giving preferential treatment to one firm over its competitors. Read a book nigger.
b8bc45 No.572746
>>572741
>>Regularly hired pinkertons to kill striking workers
What the fuck are you talking about? You realize that they only have dominion over their own property and nothing else, right, and that killing striking workers (who probably aren't on the property) is against the NAP and is incredibly counterproductive to business, right? Are you being retarded with your slippery slope fallacies on purpose or does this just come naturally?
>Not if they become a monopoly
>Software, specifically social media websites
>Monopolies
Pick one, you fucking dumbass. Monopolies cannot exist in software, and Facebook doesn't have a monopoly either for two reasons. Reason A: A monopoly is defined as an individual or company being the sole supplier of a specific product in the marketplace, and is also usually associated with the person or company controlling all aspects of producing their product through vertical integration and through inflated monopoly prices. Facebook doesn't sell its social media services to people. Facebook's business model has advertising agencies as the customers, not the users of the platform. The users of the platform aren't the customers and aren't paying for a good or service, the ad agencies are. The ad agencies don't have a lack of choice either of where to go to buy spaces for their ads, Facebook isn't the only supplier of ad space on the Internet. Reason number two: Software cannot, and will not, ever be monopolized. Software is able to be written by anybody with a computer, anybody can produce any sort of alternative to any other software on the market and profit from it. Alternatives to Facebook have existed as long as Facebook has existed and Facebook has been hemmoraging daily users for years up until this recent PR nightmare for them. They aren't even close to being a monopoly and if you think they are you're as big of a dumbass as those retards in Congress.
>Private industry is okay if kept in check by the possibility of your dogs being shot and your kids being burned with flash bangs, or "accidentally' shot by dorrkickers at 3 AM if you do some kike shit.
What the fuck are you even trying to say here?
6/10, you got me to reply
365a83 No.572749
>>572745
>Corporatism isn't free market
It's the freest kind of market there is, bud
>Ancaps prefer the system with the strongest state.
>Yes, exactly. Key word being governing, as in the government aggressing against citizens. The strikes and labor relations in general through the Gilded Age wouldn't have been nearly as shit if the National Guard (another state entity) was called in to disperse strikes.
Yeah because having blackwater break up strikes would be so much better than the nasty girls
>Monopolies are caused by the state
CITATION NEEDED
The feds had to get trigger happy with trust busting to break them up. Rockefeller didn't need preferential treatment to form a monopoly. He was just the biggest fish in the pond.
>>572746
>Monopolies cannot exist in software
Only if open source policy is enforced by the treat of violence from the state, which would not happen in ancapistan, the biggest company would just buy out, or crush the competition.
>What the fuck are you even trying to say here?
That there needs to be a sword of Damocles, aka state violence looming over the heads of private industry. Every time a CEO looks at his wife holding his kid he needs to know that there's the possibly of a rifle round severing his wife's spine with their baby in her arms should he do something to justify it.
244efe No.572750
>>572605
Thanks for the chuckle m8. More proof that anarchists are completely delusional.
8e37a8 No.572752
The real war is always in the comments.
ad3fab No.572753
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>572749
<Corporatism isn't free market
>It's the freest kind of market there is, bud.
You really don't need know what these words mean, do you?
>CITATION NEEDED
Take your fucking pick. Carnegie, the railroads, Standard Oil, the gem cartels operating in Africa right now. READ. A BOOK. NIGGER.
>The feds had to get trigger happy with trust busting to break them up
Doesn't change the fact that they were the ones that created them. Democratic governments are fickle and schizophrenic.
>Rockefeller didn't need preferential treatment to form a monopoly
Rockefeller straight-up bribed government officials to keep his competition in check.
>Only if open source policy is enforced by the treat of violence from the state
Nigger what? The state primarily enforces the OPPOSITE of that, through a little something called intellectual property laws. Because IP isn't scarce and thus not really property, "open source policy" would be the fucking default in a free market.
>
That there needs to be a sword of Damocles, aka state violence looming over the heads of private industry. Every time a CEO looks at his wife holding his kid he needs to know that there's the possibly of a rifle round severing his wife's spine with their baby in her arms should he do something to justify it.
This is no more coherent than your previous post sperging about dog shooting.
365a83 No.572755
>>572750
He thinks a corporation isn't a hierarchical structure. Do't be too hard on him.
>>572753
>My definition > the official definition
>Rockefeller bribed the government
So? How would a lack of government stop him from using underhanded tactics? He would have just done the same shit, except he would have saved a little money because he wouldn't need to bribe someone before buying out all of his competition.
ad3fab No.572756
>>572755
>So?
You really don't see how bribing a fuckhueg government apparatus to impede or arrest anyone competing with you doesn't give you an artificial advantage? And how having such a massive artificial advantage will give you a correspondingly massive edge over competition that you wouldn't have had if that apparatus wasn't there?
7a5118 No.572757
>>572755
he has a point. Monopolies have a habit of using government regulation to make it too difficult to cut into their market.
558494 No.572758
>>572605
>>Hierarchy is any system with a boss
>Wrong
So what makes a hierarchy then? I thought the definiton of a hierarchy was any system that featured superiors and inferiors, voluntary or not.
>>Being able to leave doesn't make it less of a hierarchy.
>Wrong
A hierarchy can exist regardless of who participates in it, correct?
>>Not everyone can be the boss.
>And wrong.
Pure delusion. Most people opt for being inferiors because it's easier - you don't have to make the hard decissions, just do what you're told, get paid, and your family remains fed and you get to watch talmudvision. Even if everyone on earth was suddenly free to pursue their own goals with no regard to food, health, or survival, the majority of them would still probably opt to be subservient to another since it's easier and less hassle than striking out on your own.
558494 No.572761
>>572756
What you call an "artificial" advantage will always exist, government or not. A free business that operates with impunity will almost certainly create a paramilitary wing to deal with their competetors, e.g. Mexican drug cartels. And that has nothing to do with the "crime" aspect of it; if soap or some other benign product was suddenly unenforcable by the government due ot there not being one, then Soap Cartels will eventually resort to violence to drive out their competition. Who would let the consumer vote with their dollar, when you can kill off your competition (literally) and give them no choice but to buy yours? It's not like the consumer will give a shit about the company's ethics or practices, most people just want theirs and don't give a damn how they get it.
365a83 No.572764
>>572757
And without a state they'll just do it without having to bride anyone.
7a5118 No.572765
>>572764
Without the state, competitors can rise to fill a need. Look at the Epi-pen bullshit that happened last year as a good example.
ad3fab No.572767
>>572761
>A free business that operates with impunity will almost certainly create a paramilitary wing to deal with their competetors,
There's no reason for them to do so. It's expensive, inefficient, and really not that effective. The state only gets away with it because in the short run they don't have to worry about costs.
>Mexican drug cartels. And that has nothing to do with the "crime" aspect of it
It has everything to do with the crime aspect. Private police and defense agencies (as well as privatized courts) would exist in a free market, and anyone falling victim to an attack by such an organization would be able to employ these entities for self-defense. But the way it works now, anyone operating within a black market such as drugs (this includes both producers and consumers) aren't able to access the police, courts, or defense agencies, because if they were to do so they would be arrested for engaging in an illegal market. Because there would be no black markets in a free society this wouldn't occur.
>>572764
<Monopolies have a habit of using government regulation to make it too difficult to cut into their market.
>And without a state they'll just do it without having to bride anyone.
>And without a state they'll just do [government regulation] without having to bride anyone.
>without a state they'll just do [government regulation]
You really are a special kind of retard, aren't you?
558494 No.572770
>>572767
>There's no reason for them to do so
<Well, we could compete fairly and hope the market chooses our product over our competetors
<Or, we could just try to kill them all and damage their infrastructure, regardless of who has a better product, we will win
I'd say there's plenty of reason to go that route. Force doesn't care about quality or fair competition, just who's on top.
> Private police and defense agencies (as well as privatized courts) would exist in a free market, and anyone falling victim to an attack by such an organization would be able to employ these entities for self-defense.
And like any other organiztion, those are also not created equal, so if two companies did the sdame thing and hired them, eventually one would win and one would lose. Incidentally, this aside about private security has absolutely nothing to do with my point that, government or no government, organizations or humans will always strive to exert power and control over another.
>Because there would be no black markets in a free society this wouldn't occur.
without the rule of law and governemnt, every single market would be susceptible to warlordism and violent control, not just the "illegal" ones that current governments aren't able to enforce. The government in Mexico is certainly able to enforce other markets, and nothing uncivil happens; it is because the government is unable to control the drug trade that it becomes so violent. What you advocate is the cessation of government control in all areas of the market, therefore advocating violent factionalism in all areas of the market. The proof is staring you in the face - the drug trade is truly the one uncontrolled sector of the economy, and it is filled with violence and barbarism - yet you blame the government for this, instead of the freedom of the actors in it. Then you further advocate that all of the economy should be like this.
ad3fab No.572772
>>572770
<Well, we could compete fairly and hope the market chooses our product over our competetors
<Or, we could just try to kill them all and damage their infrastructure, regardless of who has a better product, we will win
Again, very inefficient and thus there's no real benefit. Even if you "win" the sheer amount of resources you've expended on this turf war makes the trivial increase in profits that you've secured questionable at best. On top of that you've ousted yourself as a violent and unpredictable entity with whom no one has any desire to do business.
https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
558494 No.572774
>>572772
>On top of that you've ousted yourself as a violent and unpredictable entity with whom no one has any desire to do business.
I repeat, most nobody would give a shit as long as they get theirs. Only histrionic liberals virtue signal about which "ethical" and "green" companies they buy from - nobody else cares, they just want what they want and could give a Texas shit who they got it from. Like communists, people like you put far too much faith in the goodness of people, and for them to act rationally.
558494 No.572776
>>572772
And your shitty article falls apart in the seoncd paragraph:
>When dealing with the warlord objection, we need to keep our comparisons fair. It won’t do to compare society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy, with society B, which is populated by enlightened, law-abiding citizens
Society B doesn't exist, will never exist, and completely and religiously denouces the very nature of humanity to even believe that it may exist. I'll keep reading and post more if I have any more objections.
All human societies, no matter how "enlightened" or how white, are always just society A wearing the mask of civility.
ad3fab No.572777
>>572774
>I repeat, most nobody would give a shit as long as they get theirs. Only histrionic liberals virtue signal about which "ethical" and "green" companies they buy from - nobody else cares, they just want what they want and could give a Texas shit who they got it from. Like communists, people like you put far too much faith in the goodness of people, and for them to act rationally.
It has nothing to do with virtue-signalling and everything to do with simple self-interest. If an entity breaks the NAP once and goes apeshit potential business partners will assume that they'll do so again, potentially against their own interests this time. There would be a shitton of cascade effects from this. Just for starters, insurance rates for providing security and legal protection to this company would go way up, because they've just shown that they're extremely high-maintenance and unpredictable. Property-owners wouldn't be inclined to rent to this company because they anticipate a high chance of their property getting destroyed in another turf war. This list is far from exhaustive.
>>572776
>gets a handful of sentences in
>nitpicks one phrase
>OMG LOL DISPROVEN!!1!!
Brilliant discourse, I mus say.
8e37a8 No.572780
>>572777
When that sentence is the backbone of the argument yes destroying it does destroy the argument.
558494 No.572782
>>572777
> If an entity breaks the NAP once and goes apeshit potential business partners will assume that they'll do so again, potentially against their own interests this time
You assume that their business partners are free to leave or make their own decisions, and that they won't fall under the threat of violence. Indeed, just the threatening idea could make them side up to the "evil" company - better to be in the busom of the dictator than under his heel, after all. Prudence always dicates that your morals go out the window if your survival is at stake. A market is no different than an individual in this case.
>Just for starters, insurance rates for providing security and legal protection to this company would go way up, because they've just shown that they're extremely high-maintenance and unpredictable. Property-owners wouldn't be inclined to rent to this company because they anticipate a high chance of their property getting destroyed in another turf war. This list is far from exhaustive.
Your incorrect assumption is that, in an organization that is bent on power, they would need other economic actors to get their way. When you have a huge influx of profit, why rent from a landlord? Contract out your own buildings, or even create a section of your company dedicated to infrastructure. Why use insurance when your income can easily offset even the most catastrophic loss of your inventory? This is the root of feudalism/kingdoms - an organization's reliance on other economic actors vanishes when they gain full control of a region, and can either compel them to give them service as a matter of fact, or cease to need them whatsoever with the massive concentration of wealth they can acquire at any given time. All a country/government/kingdom is, is just a corporation that has grown so big it can attempt to do everything economically, and for what it can't/won't it can decide how other smaller actors will do, since they have no recourse against it.
>Brilliant discourse, I mus say.
Ironic, since that's not an argument. And it's coming, I haven't read it in many years, but it will be interesting to parse that whole thing in detail. Stay tuned, /news/ at 9.
650fa3 No.572785
>>572777
Libertarianism is pure delusion. It's a combination of all-encompassing materialism, solipsism, and denial of human nature. Don't you know that nature abhors a vacuum?
ad3fab No.572786
>>572785
>self-interest
>denial of human nature
wtf I hate markets now.
0a607f No.572788
>>572785
>that retarded strawman comic
If someone breaks or threatens to break the NAP against you you don't whine about it, you shoot them first.
NAP isn't pacifism. It's saying "Don't start trouble but if someone else starts it you can finish it."
558494 No.572789
>>572786
>Responds to the aussie shitposter's one liner and ignores my considered post
>thinking that self interest in tangible things such as power doesn't trump self interest in abstacts such as profit
top jej
ad3fab No.572791
>>572789
I was going to wait until you had finished with the article and see if that modified your stance in any way. Usually when I'm trying to read shit I find it annoying if I'm interrupted by someone asking about the shit I'm reading so I thought it better to wait.
0a607f No.572793
>>572789
Profit and power are both roughly at the same place on the abstract to tangible scale.
91a96e No.572795
>>572785
>>572786
>>572788
The closest thing to the reality of ancapistan are probably pirate towns from the 1600s that were based on common interest, and they did provide liberty even if none of them had shining royal palaces.
558494 No.572796
>>572791
If I may request something before hand, since I'm going to give a blow by blow of the article, that you do the same for my post when I finish it.
>I was going to wait until you had finished with the article and see if that modified your stance in any way.
Since I've read the article before and used to believe it, I doubt it. I'm more curious of your reactions to mine.
>>572793
I disagree, since power has immediate and constant consequences, whereas profit requires concepts of the future and delayed consequences, as well as the ability to be foiled along the path of its terminus. Power, on the other hand, needs only to worry about maintaining itself day to day. It's a subtle difference, but one that makes power infinitely more appealing to the people who grasp it.
ad3fab No.572798
>>572795
There are a number of other historical examples. Gaelic Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth, among others.
>>572796
>>572782
>You assume that their business partners are free to leave or make their own decisions, and that they won't fall under the threat of violence
I do assume that, since I'm working under the assumption that this hypothetical marauding warlord has a finite amount of resources and influence and didn't just spring into existence with massive amounts of wealth. He has to go through a process of acquiring capital, which involves making contracts and trades with other people.
>Your incorrect assumption is that, in an organization that is bent on power, they would need other economic actors to get their way.
Of course they need other economic actors. They're bent on power, as you say, they don't have it yet. Coercing the market to your will can only possibly be effective if you've already amassed enough resources and influence that the trade repercussions don't matter to you–and even then it's far from a guarantee. And if your organization already has that much influence why bother with the paramilitary shit at all? Further, all of this is assuming that it's even possible for any one organization to garner such a monopolistic level of influence in an environment of competition.
e7d871 No.572800
>>572684
Gun grab raids are already happening in our country dipshit and guess what tribe the people responsible are from and unanimously support. Oh wait,
FUCKING PISSRAEL
5ca4ac No.572801
>>572776
>someone saved my OC
0a607f No.572802
>>572796
But profit is related to and to some degree includes property which is a physical tangible thing. Power is much less tangible. It comes down mostly to threatening or rewarding people and exploiting complex social webs to position yourself in the most advantageous position possible.
Unless you are talking about physical power, by that i mean joules. Your own strength and endurance and the yield of the weapons you possess. That's very tangible.
650fa3 No.572803
>>572786
>If everyone agreed to leave each other alone all the time, even when it'd benefit larger groups to steamroll smaller groups and thus be in muh self-interest, then libertarianism would work!
>If everyone agreed to share everything equally and held no aspirations beyond toiling for the material, even when it benefits the industrious to not give up everything they possess, then communism would work!
Both are delusions about human nature, yet only one is acknowledged as such by lolbergs.
>>572788
If non-physical aggression is NOT treated the same as physical aggression:
>MegaProfitCorp™ enacts non-physical aggression against Johnny Farm-Owner, risking him his livelihood unless he cooperates
>If Johnny retaliates physically, MegaProfitCorp™ claims he broke the NAP and has full justification to ruin him
<Johnny gets steamrolled
>If Johnny retaliates non-physically, MegaProfitCorp™ doesn't even notice because it's MegaProfitCorp™
<Johnny's livelihood suffers, and he achieves nothing
If non-physical aggression IS treated the same as physical aggression:
>MegaProfitCorp™ enacts non-physical aggression against Johnny Farm-Owner, risking him his livelihood unless he cooperates
>Johnny claims that they broke the NAP, and rallies up Billy, Bubba, Steve, and Darren to help him out
>Johnny & Co. try to hire the McMercenaries™
>McMercenaries™ accept the contract from MegaProfitCorp™ instead, regardless of kvetching about the NAP, because it's within their self-interest to work with the wealthier of the two groups
<Johnny & Co. get steamrolled
>If Johnny & Co. retaliate non-physically, MegaProfitCorp™ doesn't even notice because it's MegaProfitCorp™
<Johnny & Co.'s livelihood suffers, and they achieve nothing
The NAP is useless once you reach the scale of entire organisations and societies, because those larger groups will never experience any serious repercussions for steamrolling smaller groups.
>>572789
One line is all it takes to show how retarded libertarianism is.
91a96e No.572804
>>572798
> Gaelic Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth
So it basically boils down to Vikings and sea raiders?
ad3fab No.572805
>>572804
I believe there are other instances, but those are the ones Rothbard cites most often so they're the ones that come to mind..
88a803 No.572808
>>572726
Your side never seems to be able to tell us which consequences someone is unable to understand just because they're below (age of consent in your country) years old. You are obviously incapable of sexual consent and should have your right to have sex revoked.
0a607f No.572809
>>572803
So what's your solution mister sheep farmer? Seems to me that all you've "proven" is that everything is fucked no matter what.
558494 No.572812
>It is not enough to demonstrate that a state of private-property anarchy could degenerate into ceaseless war, where no single group is strong enough to subjugate all challengers, and hence no one can establish “order.”
The concern in my case isn't ceaseless war, its the eventual victor which will subjugate all he has conquered, NAP or not.
>After all, communities living under a State degenerate into civil war all the time. We should remember that the frequently cited cases of Colombia and now Iraq are not demonstrations of anarchy-turned-into-chaos, but rather examples of government-turned-into-chaos.
Completely immaterial. The only thrust this seems to make is that governments are temporal like any other human endeavour, and I agree with that, but it doesn't actually make a point.
>For the warlord objection to work, the statist would need to argue that a given community would remain lawful under a government, but that the same community would break down into continuous warfare if all legal and military services were privatized.
Yes, since the latter will eventually evolve into the former given time. Not becuase the latter is somehow inept or incapable - simply that there is no reason that they would not eventually strive to be the former, since it nets them greater control.
>The popular case of Somalia, therefore, helps neither side.1 It is true that Rothbardians should be somewhat disturbed that the respect for non-aggression is apparently too rare in Somalia to foster the spontaneous emergence of a totally free market community
niggers lol
>But by the same token, the respect for “the law” was also too weak to allow the original Somali government to maintain order.
niggers lol
>Private agencies own the assets at their disposal, whereas politicians (especially in democracies) merely exercise temporary control over the State’s military equipment.
Semantics. With the threat of violence to back them up, a government just as effectively owns any equipment they are in possesion of as a private force that "legally" acquired it. Who will come to collect if the government decides they won't be allowed to?
> Now regardless of one’s beliefs about Clinton’s motivations, clearly Slick Willie would have been less likely to launch such an attack if he had been the CEO of a private defense agency that could have sold the missiles on the open market for $569,000 each .
No. If you have a monoploy over violence and unlimited income, you will use any tools to get your way or influence people, regardless of cost, whether you be a state actor or a private one. Soros is a perfect example of someone blowing tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars, more than most of the world will make in their entire lives combined, simply to attempt to influence the public. In the case of Clinton wasting millions to try and distract from a single event, there is really nothing unbeleivable or special about it - it's merely typical of someone who has bottomless wealth at their disposal.
>In the 1860s, would large scale combat have broken out on anywhere near the same scale if, instead of the two factions controlling hundreds of thousands of conscripts, all military commanders had to hire voluntary mercenaries and pay them a market wage for their services?
No, but this proves nothing. Had mercenary organizations been the same size as the US and CSA armies, and had backers with power and wealth that wanted to go at it, the exact same war would have been a result.
1/?
558494 No.572814
>>572812
>“To avoid this outcome,” my critic could elaborate, “citizens put aside their petty differences and agree to support a single, monopoly agency, which then has the power to crush all challengers to its authority. This admittedly raises the new problem of controlling the Leviathan, but at least it solves the problem of ceaseless domestic warfare.”
Strawman. Citizens don't agree to a new government, the government dictates to them to follow or else. Nobody wants government, yet it is a logical end to a pursuit of power and something that cannot be avoided, what the people want have no influence on its formation. Sure, in order to gain support and legitimacy, some try to appeal to "The People", but it is their own pursuit of power that drives them to make such a proclamation, not some telepathic mandate from the body of citizens.
>There are several problems with this possible approach. First, it assumes that the danger of private warlords is worse than the threat posed by a tyrannical central government.
It is, since living among two fighting sides almost neccesarily makes you an enemy to one of them, whereas under a tyranical government you may not be/adapt to make yourself an ally.
> Second, there is the inconvenient fact that no such voluntary formation of a State ever occurred.
Correct and incorrect. On the formation of a state, before it gains dominance and power, it may draw from recruits in order to help bolster its numbers nad fighting force. Everyone who joins said organization/proto-government has no power, and neither does their organization. But if the achieve it, they no longer have to rely on voluntary admission to the organization - they can simply exert their will on the populace, volunteers or not.
> Even those citizens who, say, supported the ratification of the U.S. Constitution were never given the option of living in market anarchy; instead they had to choose between government under the Articles of Confederation or government under the Constitution.
The citizens chose nothing, as the people in power were the actual ones to make the choice.
>But for our purposes, the most interesting problem with this objection is that, were it an accurate description, it would be unnecessary for such a people to form a government.
Horribly incorrect assumption that implies that the citizenry form governments, instead of corporate bodies in pursuit of power.
> If, by hypothesis, the vast majority of people—although they have different conceptions of justice—can all agree that it is wrong to use violence to settle their honest disputes, then market forces would lead to peace among the private police agencies.
Still falsely assuming that the citizenry have any say in how things are run whatsoever.
> Nonetheless, if the contract theory of government is correct, the vast majority of individuals can agree that they should settle these issues not through force, but rather through an orderly procedure (such as is provided by periodic elections).
Still the assumption that common people that don't pursue power have any say in any matters, but for the (illusory) token involvement their masters throw them.
>But if this does indeed describe a particular population, why would we expect such virtuous people, as consumers, to patronize defense agencies that routinely used force against weak opponents?
Busom of the dictator, cowardice, apathy, self-centeredness, etc.
> Why wouldn’t the vast bulk of reasonable customers patronize defense agencies that had interlocking arbitration agreements, and submitted their legitimate disputes to reputable, disinterested arbitrators? Why wouldn’t the private, voluntary legal framework function as an orderly mechanism to settle matters of “public policy”?
Because common people have no real say, and don't care as long as they get theirs and live comfortably.
2/?
558494 No.572815
>>572814
>Again, the above description would not apply to every society in history. But by the same token, such warlike people would also fail to maintain the rule of law in a limited State.
The execution of real state power is worlds away from illusory voluntary agreement among equals. One is tangible and the natrual state of humans (or any other natrually selected intelligent animal) and one is pure fantasy.
>A sophisticated apologist for the State—especially one versed in mainstream economics—might come back with yet another justification: “The reason a limited government is necessary is that we can’t trust the market to adequately fund legitimate police forces.
What the fuck? Strawman as shit. A free, stateless market can adequately fund multiple keepers of law and order - it's just a question of how long they will keep putting an abstract like profit or NAP over real and immediate power, which is almost always paired with ideology, and if most ideologies are any indication, cannot be talked out of by reason or interest. A muslim suicide bomber doesn't care how much his insurance premiums might go up by bombing the market square, he has fanatical ideology and everything else worldy or rational is entirely secondary. So the counter for private, stateless police forces is - how long do you think they can hold out and be rationally economic about their actions before they succumb to ideology and attempt to seize power, no matter how many rational economic negatives you can throw at them, like every other goverment in the history of the world?
>It may be true that 95 percent of a population would have similar enough views with respect to justice such that peace would obtain if they all contributed substantially to defense agencies dedicated to enforcing their views.”
So a government? All this demonstrates is that people are willing to suck up to whoever provides them comfort and security.
>“However,” the apologist could continue, “if these police agencies have no right to extract contributions from everyone who endorses their actions, then they will be able to field a much smaller force. The market fails specifically because of the free rider problem: When a legitimate firm cracks down on a rogue agency, all law abiding people benefit, but in a free market they would not be obliged to pay for this ‘public good.’ Consequently, rogue agencies, funded by malevolent outlaws, will have a much wider scope of operation under anarchy.”
This guy strawmans out the fucking ass. There are no "legitimate" or "malevolent" firms, there are only the ones here today and the victor tomorrow, and no matter who it is, even if it is despicably evil the people will fall in line and not fight back as long as their basic needs are provided for.
>Again, there are several possible replies to such a position. First, let us reflect that a large standing army, ready to crush minority dissenters, is not an unambiguously desirable feature of government.
Okay? Agreed, but once again this means nothing. My personal feelings, your personal feelings, etc. have no sway over the matter that there is, in fact, an army that will crush minority dissenters, and you will either fall in line, be crushed yourself, or pursue power yourself. If you do the latter, you will have to also crush minority dissrenters yourself, or risk losing the power and being crushed as if you never had it. It's a tenuous game.
>Second, the alleged problem of free riders would not be nearly as disastrous as many economists believe. For example, insurance companies would “internalize the externalities” to a large degree.
Holy shit what is the fetish with insurance companies being the sole arbiter of what's right in ancap land? Power doesn't wait for intangibles.
3/?
558494 No.572816
>>572815
>Yet insurance companies that each held policies for thousands of people in a major city would be willing to contribute hefty amounts to eliminate the menace of a serial killer. (After all, if he kills again, one of these companies will have to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the estate of the victim.) The same reasoning demonstrates that the free market could adequately fund programs to “contain” rogue agencies.
No it literally fucking doesn't. How many insurance policies were issued to the citizenry, with the payout condition being that a foreign country attacked the nation? This makes zero fucking sense, I don't grasp what point this guy is trying to make here. Would Syrians have insurance policies against ISIS if big bad Assad and his government didn’t stop them? This would change anything? The core assumption of this constant deference to insurance always assumes that society will be civil in a power struggle, which it won’t.
>Imagine a bustling city, such as New York, that is initially a free market paradise.
>Imagine this fantasy unreal scenario
Uh, no.
> Is it really plausible that over time rival gangs would constantly grow, and eventually terrorize the general public?
Like what drug gangs in Mexcio are literally doing right now? Supplanting the government, executing people in public with their own form of justice, terrorizing the populace because they cannot fight back, and there is no government that will do so for them? How can this dude be so unaware?
>Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs.
Objectively wrong, has this guy ever heard of religion? People are turning to the gangs in some regions of Mexico since they have formed weird death cults to go along with their actions. How about Pablo Escobar? How about all of the communist leaders, who were murderous criminals, yet somehow (gee, I wonder why?) got large chunks of their population to fanatically worship them as living gods and support their government? Holy shit, I hope this article was written in 1827 or something to the dude who wrote it can be excused for his ignorance.
>We must consider that in such an environment, the law-abiding majority would have all sorts of mechanisms at their disposal, beyond physical confrontation.
Like what?
>Once private judges had ruled against a particular rogue agency, the private banks could freeze its assets (up to the amount of fines levied by the arbitrators).
And the offending organization puts a bullet in the judge's head, or sneers at the verdict and says "come and take it". What then? Power-vieing organizations voluntarily paying fines issued by a non-authority with no power? What fucking planet is this dude living on? I tried to take these arguments at face value, but after going through this for a while I'm getting more and more irritated at all these fantastical justifications.
4/?
558494 No.572817
>>572816
>Of course, it is theoretically possible that a rogue agency could overcome these obstacles,
Hahahah, theoretically. What do you think every government in the history of the world is you fucking mong?
>either through intimidation or division of the spoils, and take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. But the point is, from an initial position of market anarchy, these would-be rulers would have to start from scratch. In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized.
It's always waiting to be seized, since the common populace are lemmings that will always desire comfort over freedom, i.e. willing slaves. The "machinery of mass subjugation" being in place will make the transition smoother, but it not being there doesn't mean it won't eventually.
>The standard objection that anarchy would lead to battling warlords is unfounded.
hahahahahahahahaaahah
>In those communities where such an outcome would occur, the addition of a State wouldn’t help.
Agreed, since the battling warlords are all vying to be the state, the old order be damned.
>Indeed, the precise opposite is true: The voluntary arrangements of a private property society would be far more conducive to peace and the rule of law, than the coercive setup of a parasitical monopoly government.
And in a perfect world communism doesn't just work on paper and we all get along and there's no need to fight. This goes back to the original point I picked apart - his whole premise rests on the idea that we can have an enlightened peaceful society. That's a fantasy, an illusion. Humans are animals, self-interested beings that will sell their freedom and morals for the promise of surivial and comfort without the slightest unease.
Thank's for posting the article, it was fun to muse how far my way of thinking has come from it.
5/5
6cdb54 No.572818
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>572204
KΑΛΗ ΤΥΧΗ ΕΜΠΟΛΑ-ΤΣΑΝ!
Σ'ΑΓΑΠΑΩ ΕΜΠΟΛΑ-ΤΣΑΝ!
ΒΓΑΛΕ ΦΤΕΡΑ ΕΜΠΟΛΑ-ΤΣΑΝ!
248378 No.572819
After the shit fling that is this thread, I am fully convinced that I should just keep my trap shut if I'm with fellow Streloks after the bombs fall and someone wants to talk right-wing political leanings.
>Hey Strelok, you're not some lol-berg are you?
>"My name is Strelok, I kill commies…"
>Hey Strelok, you're not some NEET-Soc are you?
>"My name is Strelok, I kill commies…
Lest I get a bullet in the back of my head from either a triggered Libertarian or disgruntled Nat-Soc.
6cdb54 No.572821
558494 No.572822
>>572798
>. Coercing the market to your will can only possibly be effective if you've already amassed enough resources and influence that the trade repercussions don't matter to you
What do you think a government is?
>and even then it's far from a guarantee.
Of course it isn't look at all the failed revolutions and uprisings throughout history. But the rare few that make it do become the ones in charge. Your point?
> And if your organization already has that much influence why bother with the paramilitary shit at all?
Ask the government.
> Further, all of this is assuming that it's even possible for any one organization to garner such a monopolistic level of influence in an environment of competition.
There are roughly 300 examples operating in the world today, the government of Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola……….Yemen, Zambia, and Occupied Rhodesia. Again, what do you think a government is?
>I do assume that, since I'm working under the assumption that this hypothetical marauding warlord has a finite amount of resources and influence and didn't just spring into existence with massive amounts of wealth
You're right, he doesn't spring into existence, he gains it by the combination of the willing subjugation of a mass number of people and the threat of violence. Of course, that doesn't happen overnight.
>He has to go through a process of acquiring capital, which involves making contracts and trades with other people.
>Warlord
>Making contracts and trades when he can just kill and take
Dude I'm arguing in good faith here, please do me a favor and take this conversation seriously.
0a607f No.572823
>>572803
I'd also like to point out that your argument that Johnny and his buds could never hope to triumph over the Megacorp is auspiciously similar to the gun control argument that the citizens of a country have no hope in resisting a tyrannical government and all it's weaponry. Just saying.
6cdb54 No.572824
>>572680
>(((Yonathan Amselem)))
Delicious.
558494 No.572826
>>572823
It's not at all similar, since the Second Amendment enables the armament of citizens in the hope that they will eventually band together and vie for power over the established organization(government). That is, assume control and consolidate their power. If "Johnny and his buds" just want to defend themselves, or get even, with no real plan to ascend to power or overthrow Megacorp, then yes, they have zero chance at being successful.
650fa3 No.572828
>>572826
I was in the process of typing a response, but >>572826 beat me to it. The point I'm making isn't that resistance is futile, but that the tenets of libertarianism set you on a terrible footing for mounting any sort of resistance to an organised aggressor.
558494 No.572829
>>572802
>Unless you are talking about physical power, by that i mean joules. Your own strength and endurance and the yield of the weapons you possess. That's very tangible.
A little bit of both, I suppose. As Buddy Stalin once said, "No man, no problem." Using your very real gun's power to execute an enemy to your abstract power offers an immediate and tangible effect in the latter. Property as a concept, I would argue, is both a mix of economic abstraction and tangible power/influence.
ad3fab No.572833
>>572812
>The concern in my case isn't ceaseless war, its the eventual victor which will subjugate all he has conquered, NAP or not.
Why assume there will be one single victor? Economics isn't a zero-sum game, that's one of its fundamental principles.
>Completely immaterial. The only thrust this seems to make is that governments are temporal like any other human endeavour, and I agree with that, but it doesn't actually make a point.
The point is that the state has been shown time and time again to be ineffective at keeping order. As such, if your argument for the state is that it promotes order these examples weaken that claim.
>Yes, since the latter will eventually evolve into the former given time. Not becuase the latter is somehow inept or incapable - simply that there is no reason that they would not eventually strive to be the former, since it nets them greater control.
You're assuming that this "control" (by which I assume you mean something more than simple market influence) is something that's universally desired and desirable. People seek only so far as that control helps them maintain themselves; if their situation is already stable and content there isn't any incentive for them to seek absolute control.
>Semantics. With the threat of violence to back them up, a government just as effectively owns any equipment they are in possesion of as a private force that "legally" acquired it.
Hardly semantics, the incentive implications are very real. Having temporary control over something incentives you to suck it dry in the limited time you have, while owning an asset encourages one to think in the longer term and sustain its value over time.
>No. If you have a monoploy over violence and unlimited income, you will use any tools to get your way or influence people
The first part is somewhat true. Governments (the only entities with a true monopoly on violence) will use the tools available to them to get their way. It's a stretch to assume that they will influence people beyond what is necessary to achieve the former, however.
>regardless of cost
If you're a state official and you don't actually have to pay for any of this, sure.
>whether you be a state actor or a private one
This is where it breaks down. Private actors don't have "unlimited income," for one. State actors don't either, it's just that the state actors in question are in a position to not be around when the time comes to pay the piper. Private actors can't ever be said to have a monopoly over violence the way the state does either, because what grants the state its 'monopoly' on coercion is the perceived ethos and gravitas of the state. The state's subjects are under the impression that its violence is somehow justified and don't contest it. McPMC™ has no such mystique about it.
>Soros is a perfect example of someone blowing tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars, more than most of the world will make in their entire lives combined, simply to attempt to influence the public.
Soros doesn't have an army of mercenaries bending the world to his will inb4 BLM, he just throws money at nonprofits. In that sense he's no different than any rich philanthropist, he's donating to causes that he perceives as just in order to purchase a feeling of goodwill. And even if you make the argument that all of these donations and causes are centered around getting more power to Soros, here's the rub–the goal of all these nonprofits is to petition and influence the state to enact some policy or another; it's just a more circuitous example of bribery and lobbying. So even with all this supposed power that comes from being a wealthy private citizen he's still relying on the government to enact the changes for him, because ultimately the state and its ""bottomless"" (lol) coffers is the only entity with the capability of doing this.
>No, but this proves nothing. Had mercenary organizations been the same size as the US and CSA armies, and had backers with power and wealth that wanted to go at it, the exact same war would have been a result.
You're making several unwarranted assumptions, namely: Why would mercenary organizations grow to such a ridiculous size in the free market? If for whatever reason there was a market demand for that many mercenaries why would they be concentrated within two firms, one in the North and one in the South? Why would these firms waste energy and resources duking it out? Where did these backers come from? Why are they so eager to throw obscene quantities of money into this farce? And without federal laws regarding slavery and the mass decentralization that comes with a free market you don't really have a cassus belli the way you do in the prime timeline.
ad3fab No.572834
>>572833
>Strawman. Citizens don't agree to a new government, the government dictates to them to follow or else. Nobody wants government, yet it is a logical end to a pursuit of power and something that cannot be avoided, what the people want have no influence on its formation. Sure, in order to gain support and legitimacy, some try to appeal to "The People", but it is their own pursuit of power that drives them to make such a proclamation, not some telepathic mandate from the body of citizens.
Governments, whether they are democracies or not, must have some nominal support from its citizens in order to function and maintain power. If the citizens don't accept the state's rule the state loses power. Why else would Communist regimes have such an emphasis on propaganda and ensuring everyone thought the rulers were legitimate, if, as according to you, all they need is force?
>It is, since living among two fighting sides almost neccesarily makes you an enemy to one of them, whereas under a tyranical government you may not be/adapt to make yourself an ally.
Also a strawman. Feudalism is a good example, wars when they occurred were private affairs between the two lords and their knights, and didn't demand that the serfs choose one side or the other.
>Correct and incorrect. On the formation of a state, before it gains dominance and power, it may draw from recruits in order to help bolster its numbers nad fighting force. Everyone who joins said organization/proto-government has no power, and neither does their organization. But if the achieve it, they no longer have to rely on voluntary admission to the organization - they can simply exert their will on the populace, volunteers or not.
Again, states have always been dependent on the acceptance of their rule as legitimate in order to wield power.
4b893e No.572835
ad3fab No.572836
>>572834
>Still falsely assuming that the citizenry have any say in how things are run whatsoever.
And you ignored the point about market forces. Regardless of whether people have "power" or not, economics disincentivizes wasteful, incessant warfare.
>Because common people have no real say, and don't care as long as they get theirs and live comfortably.
Because the availability of reputable arbitration is pretty closely linked to the ability for one to "get theirs and live comfortably."
> A free, stateless market can adequately fund multiple keepers of law and order - it's just a question of how long they will keep putting an abstract like profit or NAP over real and immediate power, which is almost always paired with ideology, and if most ideologies are any indication, cannot be talked out of by reason or interest.
>profit
>arbitrary
Material gain is far from arbitrary, and is far more tangible than "power." That "real and immediate power" is the arbitrary thing here, it doesn't net you anything beneficial and comes at the cost of immense resources, not to mention ability to trade with everyone around you.
>A muslim suicide bomber doesn't care how much his insurance premiums might go up by bombing the market square, he has fanatical ideology and everything else worldy or rational is entirely secondary.
All this really proves is that if you raise a goatfucker secluded and illiterate and feed him nothing but bullshit from childhood you can occasionally get him to do some freaky shit. It's hardly a commentary on market forces.
>So the counter for private, stateless police forces is - how long do you think they can hold out and be rationally economic about their actions before they succumb to ideology and attempt to seize power, no matter how many rational economic negatives you can throw at them, like every other goverment in the history of the world?
As long as they're market actors. Government officials can wax lyrical about ideology because they're not the ones footing the bill–all those economic negatives aren't negatives at all because they're safe in the belief that someone else will pay for them. When their own personal gain comes on the line they forget all about ideology and its suddenly about self-interest again.
>Holy shit what is the fetish with insurance companies being the sole arbiter of what's right in ancap land? Power doesn't wait for intangibles.
Once again, "power" is far more intangible than profit, which represents very real and very tangible material gain.
>Like what drug gangs in Mexcio are literally doing right now? Supplanting the government, executing people in public with their own form of justice, terrorizing the populace because they cannot fight back, and there is no government that will do so for them? How can this dude be so unaware?
Drug gangs in Mexico aren't going around the government, they're using it for their own ends by bribing the officials. This is another example of how coercive action is only really possible by the state, which is why private institutions will appeal to it even when they hold so much apparent "power."
>etc.
Your argument is verbose but unconvincing and repetitive. Most of it is based around this bizarre fetishization of "power" that you have, combined with pretending profit motive doesn't exist by dismissing profit as "intangible." You also don't readily differentiate between state and private institutions, and attribute the qualities of one to the other and vice versa.
b8bc45 No.572838
>>572803
>no incentive to not violate the NAP
The incentive is that people won't kill you in return, you dumbshit
650fa3 No.572840
>>572838
Did you skip everything after the third sentence, or what?
175fbc No.572843
>>572838
Isn't that arguably what a police force is.
558494 No.572844
>>572833
>>572834
>>572836
First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for taking the time to read my posts and consider them, and produce counter arguments of a satisfactory nature Nice argument, fag. no but really, thanks. I'm having fun, and the first good convo here since maybe 2014 on /pol/. The structure of it reminds me of the good old days of that board, for sure.
>Why assume there will be one single victor? Economics isn't a zero-sum game, that's one of its fundamental principles.
Economics is just a subset of human organization. There are single victors temporally over a certain zone - those conflicts that end in stalemates simply become two different zones of influence, in which only one organization has a total say, i.e. governments. Whtile they may dominate over a region for their lifetime, there are certainly opposition parties formenting under their nose all the while, so yeah, not zero-sum.
>The point is that the state has been shown time and time again to be ineffective at keeping order. As such, if your argument for the state is that it promotes order these examples weaken that claim.
I agree an organization is ineffective at keeping order in perpetuity. They eventually wane and collapse and another one takes its place. It promotes order for the time being until its eventual death. Only in extremely rare cases do we find organizations that last for hundreds of years relatively unchanged (Switzerland, that one Japanese inn that has been in the same family for a thousand years). But the rule is an organization, whether it be a government or an economic corporation, can only last a century or two before it either teaks itself apart of becomes weak and susceptible to domination.
>You're assuming that this "control" (by which I assume you mean something more than simple market influence) is something that's universally desired and desirable.
Yes, I'm saying that control and will to power aren't just abstract concepts some are attracted to, but innate desires, instincts that are inherent in all humans (consequently, completely running counter to concepts like NAP). Whether or not they have the will to pursue them separates the wheat from the chaff, but given the chance, almost everyone will express it in some fashion.
>Hardly semantics, the incentive implications are very real. Having temporary control over something incentives you to suck it dry in the limited time you have, while owning an asset encourages one to think in the longer term and sustain its value over time.
Value in an economic sense does not equal value in a control/power sense. For a small example, if I drop a loan of $1,000 dollars on a person, with no chance of it being repaid, economically that's an incredibly stupid descision. I lose the money with no direct ROI. But if I use that loan from a power perspective, as leverage, as a means to get that person to do something I want through guilt, to do something they haven't agreed to, as a card to hold over their head and say "you owe me"… then that 1k is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the control I can get from it. You could even ostensibly manipulate a service that is far more valuable than $1,000 from the person. From both sides of the spectrum, the descision to loan out that money could be either be stupid or very advantageous, depending on how you approach it.
1/?
ad3fab No.572845
>>572844
>Value in an economic sense does not equal value in a control/power sense. For a small example, if I drop a loan of $1,000 dollars on a person, with no chance of it being repaid, economically that's an incredibly stupid descision. I lose the money with no direct ROI. But if I use that loan from a power perspective, as leverage, as a means to get that person to do something I want through guilt, to do something they haven't agreed to, as a card to hold over their head and say "you owe me"… then that 1k is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the control I can get from it. You could even ostensibly manipulate a service that is far more valuable than $1,000 from the person. From both sides of the spectrum, the descision to loan out that money could be either be stupid or very advantageous, depending on how you approach it.
None of that runs counter to economics, or even the NAP. Action axiom clearly states that humans will act to minimize unease, and this is just an example of that. It's not even coercion in the way you described it, as the debtor chose to take the loan and any subsequent action taken out of guilt is voluntary. But in the long run this isn't economically viable as most people will have the intelligence not to take such a loan and others will be less inclined to take loans from you after the first time you attempt this because they realize it's not in their own interest.
ad3fab No.572846
>>572845
In any case, this is all irrelevant to the point I was making, namely that politicians will make economically "stupid" decisions not because they desire 'power' more than that lost money, but because that 'lost' money isn't something they're responsible for paying, so it just doesn't factor into their equation.
558494 No.572848
>>572833
>The first part is somewhat true. Governments (the only entities with a true monopoly on violence) will use the tools available to them to get their way. It's a stretch to assume that they will influence people beyond what is necessary to achieve the former, however.
Which former? I don't follow this point, sorry.
>If you're a state official and you don't actually have to pay for any of this, sure.
It's not just a "state", it's any organization with sufficient wealth and power.
> Private actors don't have "unlimited income," for one. State actors don't either, it's just that the state actors in question are in a position to not be around when the time comes to pay the piper.
So if you're a private actor that wants said unlimited income, if you truly deisre it, you will start to do anything to become the "state" actor, so you are eventually in that position where nobody can collect on you.
>Private actors can't ever be said to have a monopoly over violence the way the state does either, because what grants the state its 'monopoly' on coercion is the perceived ethos and gravitas of the state.
The current state in control of any area were once private actors with no monoply on violence, then built up and took power until they were. You're stating a truism, that the minority party doesn't have absolute power, true. But if they pursue it and succeed, then they will. I don't mean to denigrate, but your comparison of "the private" vs "the state" smacks of the same conflict painting as "the proletariat" vs "the bourgeousie". The former decries the latter… until they get the opportunity to become them, at which they will spring at the chance. There is nothing innocent in proletariat, nor the private sector vs their "oppressors" (ruling party). They will do the exact same once they assume command.
>The state's subjects are under the impression that its violence is somehow justified and don't contest it.
No. That is a convenient explanation away from the ugly truth - that the people don't care.
They haven't been tricked or brainwashed into thinking some moral system, like a Marxist would state. They create the moral system as a justification for their own supplication to the powers that be, to feel comfortable selling out, to be content in being subjugated. Because they get theirs in return for their obedient consent.
>And even if you make the argument that all of these donations and causes are centered around getting more power to Soros, here's the rub–the goal of all these nonprofits is to petition and influence the state to enact some policy or another;
I think if you replaced all of your iterations of "the state" with my view as "the ruling party", you would see it less as oppositional and more as the way things are. This line specifically illustrates the disjunct in our worldviews I think. It seems that if Soros donated (in order to manipulate) to private corporations instead of "the state" that would be alright from your view, since it's a free vs coercive force, yeah? I don't make any distinction between the two, the effect is the same.
>So even with all this supposed power that comes from being a wealthy private citizen he's still relying on the government to enact the changes for him, because ultimately the state and its ""bottomless"" (lol) coffers is the only entity with the capability of doing this.
Any entity with power and funds will eventually do this. And even an entity that starts as a private enterprise, not beholden to the public, if they gain enough they become the government or "state". Form isn't the issue here.
ad3fab No.572849
>>572848
>It's not just a "state", it's any organization with sufficient wealth and power.
You ignored the driving point, responsibility of payment. Politicians are okay with doing what on the surface is profoundly uneconomic behavior because they're not the ones who have to pay for it, unlike the proprietor of a business.
>So if you're a private actor that wants said unlimited income, if you truly deisre it, you will start to do anything to become the "state" actor, so you are eventually in that position where nobody can collect on you.
And how do you get from A to B, assuming for the moment that gratuitous power is a universally desired thing? Any attempt to do so with force has a multitude of material disincentives to do so. Any attempt to do so peaceably through the market will be mutually beneficial to all parties involved, and as such will not only be permitted but encouraged.
>They haven't been tricked or brainwashed into thinking some moral system, like a Marxist would state. They create the moral system as a justification for their own supplication to the powers that be, to feel comfortable selling out, to be content in being subjugated. Because they get theirs in return for their obedient consent.
Then why is propaganda so prevalent among states, particularly totalitarian ones? Commie countries regularly reported unnaturally high literacy rates, and that's one statistic I can easily believe wasn't manufactured–the commies encouraged literacy to make sure people started consuming propaganda as early as possible. If people were lemmings that didn't give a shit, why bother with this? Why do our own public schools drill the "goods of government" into the skulls of every child to pass through their doors?
>I think if you replaced all of your iterations of "the state" with my view as "the ruling party", you would see it less as oppositional and more as the way things are. This line specifically illustrates the disjunct in our worldviews I think. It seems that if Soros donated (in order to manipulate) to private corporations instead of "the state" that would be alright from your view, since it's a free vs coercive force, yeah? I don't make any distinction between the two, the effect is the same.
Why wouldn't there be a difference between a voluntary action and a coercive one? The former is by definition accepted by both parties and thus can be said to be mutually beneficial the latter is by definition wanted by one and not the other and as such is detrimental.
558494 No.572850
>>572845
>guilt is voluntary
I disagree. By counting on the instinctual emotion that most people exhibit, you can basically guarantee their action in response. Hence, manipulation - unless all people who have been manipulated into doing things they don't want to do secretly wanted to do it?
>>572834
>Governments, whether they are democracies or not, must have some nominal support from its citizens in order to function and maintain power.
Not at all. There are many, many examples throughout history of governments that ruled with an iron fist, their people hated them, and guess what? They could do nothing about it. The government still maintained power, still maintained their taxes, and the people were helpless. The Assyrians are a good example, or the Norks if you want something more contemporary.
> If the citizens don't accept the state's rule the state loses power.
Not true. If you actually believe this, I would call it a comforting delusion. Empowering and good for self-image, but a delusion nonetheless. The vast majority of people that ever lived have lived under the rule of governments they had no say of in formation, policy, action, etc. Subjects.
>Feudalism is a good example, wars when they occurred were private affairs between the two lords and their knights, and didn't demand that the serfs choose one side or the other.
Good point.
>Again, states have always been dependent on the acceptance of their rule as legitimate in order to wield power.
And again, I disagree wholeheartedly. They are dependent on acceptance tp remain stable and foster no opposition, but if they are iron fisted enough to stamp that out, they will rule on regardless how many people dislike it.
>And you ignored the point about market forces. Regardless of whether people have "power" or not, economics disincentivizes wasteful, incessant warfare.
Economics disincentivizes anything wasteful. Doesn't mean it won't be engaged in if the goal is higher than economics, such as ideology.
>All this really proves is that if you raise a goatfucker secluded and illiterate and feed him nothing but bullshit from childhood you can occasionally get him to do some freaky shit. It's hardly a commentary on market forces.
This isn't unique to goatfuckers, anon. All people are susceptible to this way of thinking, it is the way we evolved. I don't care if you're a 200IQ Aryan Ubermensch, you could still easily put ideology far above anything rational and tangible. Instinct is just as powerful a force as intellect. Rationality isn't the ultimate endgame you think it is. Thus any concepts based on rationality as a core tenet (libertarianism, NAP, economic exchange) will not always be sustainable among any population, like any other tenet.
>Once again, "power" is far more intangible than profit, which represents very real and very tangible material gain.
Impasse. From what we have both stated, our views on this can't be resolved. I'll leave it here.
ad3fab No.572852
>>572850
>Not at all. There are many, many examples throughout history of governments that ruled with an iron fist, their people hated them, and guess what? They could do nothing about it. The government still maintained power, still maintained their taxes, and the people were helpless. The Assyrians are a good example, or the Norks if you want something more contemporary.
And the Norks are also subject to a rather substantial propaganda campaign that makes the commmie rule appear legitimate, for the purpose of placating the people.
>The vast majority of people that ever lived have lived under the rule of governments they had no say of in formation, policy, action, etc. Subjects.
But they were still to some degree convinced that the ones in power were legitimate. The king was king because he had divine right. Democracies are the "will of the people" and thus their decisions can't be contested. There's always some mechanism that the state in power uses to convince its subjects that their subservience is not only legitimate but desirable compared to the alternative.
>Economics disincentivizes anything wasteful. Doesn't mean it won't be engaged in if the goal is higher than economics, such as ideology.
Ideology is only "higher" than economics when the one calling for the ideology is in a position where economic concerns don't affect them, which is to say they aren't even indirectly involved with payments and the like. Incidentally, this is why we've seen an explosion of "ideology" in the democratic age compared to relatively more practical monarchs. Because monarchs "owned" their realm, and were not only its purveyors for life but bequeathed to their heirs, it was in their best interest to remain economically prudent. They tended to levy lower taxes compared to democratic rulers, for instance, because even if a higher tax rate would bring in more wealth in the short run, in the long run it decreases the productivity of the nation and limits the possibilities for future growth. Democratic rulers, in contrast, don't care about raising taxes absurdly high because they don't care about the long-term financial effects. They don't "own" the country the way a monarch does, they merely curate it for a number of years, which incentivizes them to ignore economic realities in favor of maximizing output and results in the short-term, because the long-term won't affect them. Because democracies have this disdain for the long-term and separation from economic reality is why we have scene so much ideological motivation from them, not because they value ideology over practicality.
558494 No.572853
>>572836
>As long as they're market actors. Government officials can wax lyrical about ideology because they're not the ones footing the bill–all those economic negatives aren't negatives at all because they're safe in the belief that someone else will pay for them. When their own personal gain comes on the line they forget all about ideology and its suddenly about self-interest again.
Depends on how fanatical, but you're generally right.
>Drug gangs in Mexico aren't going around the government, they're using it for their own ends by bribing the officials.
No, it's what I'm saying. Effectively, they are the government. They are the new force in power. It's not so much they are bribing government officials to look the other way, they have completely infiltrated and seized control of these departments with their own people. Just like any other organization that vies for power.
>This is another example of how coercive action is only really possible by the state
Its not, it's possible by everybody. All it serves to do is further my point that the ruling party will use it incessantly until they lose it to a competetor, who then will do the same themselves. To put it another way, if your remove the state, the fastest person off the starting line will race to become The New State. You can't stop it, it's never going to go away.
>Your argument is verbose but unconvincing and repetitive.
Okay.
>Most of it is based around this bizarre fetishization of "power" that you have,
It's not fetishization so much as the natural order of things. Power as an intelligent human concept is really just an extension of Darwinian survival of the fittest. Might makes right, etc. There's nothing spooky or mystical about it, it is simply why we even exist in the first place.
>combined with pretending profit motive doesn't exist by dismissing profit as "intangible."
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that a high minded intelligent concept like profit will almost always be superceded by the low instinct of expressing power and frighteningly enough, the most cunning and intelligent of our species are perfectly able of doing both.
>You also don't readily differentiate between state and private institutions, and attribute the qualities of one to the other and vice versa.
I'm glad you grasped this, since it's the key point of differention between our worldviews -
there is no difference between the two.
Human organizations will always seek to subjugate and control in their own way, that is their purpose, why they're even a thing. Whether it's for profit, manipulation, ideology, etc, it doesn't matter. They exist to exercise control over their chosen sphere. So yes, to differentiate between a private business and a government is pointless, since they both aspire to the same thing, but differ in means and power.
558494 No.572855
>>572852
>But they were still to some degree convinced that the ones in power were legitimate. The king was king because he had divine right. Democracies are the "will of the people" and thus their decisions can't be contested. There's always some mechanism that the state in power uses to convince its subjects that their subservience is not only legitimate but desirable compared to the alternative.
I completely agree with this. I'll simply add on that any organization, such as a private business you seem to venerate, will also use this tool as much as they can. Scope is the only difference between the organizations.
909815 No.572856
>>572800
>Israel is causing gun grabs in America
>Not the SJW Progressives
This is your brain on Idpol
ad3fab No.572857
>>572853
>No, it's what I'm saying. Effectively, they are the government. They are the new force in power. It's not so much they are bribing government officials to look the other way, they have completely infiltrated and seized control of these departments with their own people. Just like any other organization that vies for power.
And I believe the fact that they have infiltrated these institutions instead of openly contesting them is not insignificant. For one, it implies that the established government has a level of ethos that the cartels cannot attain independently, no matter how physically mighty they may be. It is the judges and the police chiefs that hold that, which is why the cartels continue to subvert even if they're (ostensibly) powerful enough to challenge them directly. Further, your claim is based on this notion that humans seek to express power. I'm assuming you're referring to the evolutionary instinct to convey might–to publicly broadcast your superiority over rivals to your mate, to someone encroaching on your territory, and so forth. If this is in fact the driving instinct, why do the cartels and so many other institutions insist on subtlety and subversion? Expressing power is something done publicly, brazenly, a very explicit demonstration to those around you that you are stronger than your immediate rivals. Subverting those rivals and hiding behind their visage is precisely the opposite of this.
558494 No.572858
>>572857
>Further, your claim is based on this notion that humans seek to express power. I'm assuming you're referring to the evolutionary instinct to convey might–to publicly broadcast your superiority over rivals to your mate, to someone encroaching on your territory, and so forth.
I mean that they seek to act on their power and reap the rewards of it, expression or method (subtle, overt) is meaningless to the reward.
It was good debating with you, I've got to call it a night now. My parting question will be what I've asked twice already - what IS a government? How does it form? Is there a meaningful difference in the result in how it acts on its power, vs any other human organization? I'll look forward to your response if you care to make it. Peace.
ad3fab No.572859
>>572858
The way I see it, government is any institution which holds a monopoly on force, and uses this monopoly to coercively extract resources from its subjects. Nominally, a government is different from organized crime through that 'monopoly' part; the government's perceived right to its subjugation is uncontested, while gangs don't tend to have that illusion of legitimacy. Governments can be said to form when some group acquires this perceived legitimacy. In ancient times, this was achieved through a strategic partnership between rulers and priests, the latter supplying what was seen as legitimate ethos to the former. In the secular age, the royal lie that maintains a ruler's legitimacy is democracy–the illusory notion that the elected leader represents the people's will–combined with reaffirmations by Court Intellectuals like Keynes, who use "scientific" explanations to justify to the public why the current rulers are not only legitimate, but indispensable to society, lest all order collapse. There isn't a meaningful difference in the way politicians and bureaucrats act compared to others. In both cases, the governing principle is the Action Axiom: that men will consciously act to minimize unease, or to maximize satisfaction. What constitutes satisfaction and unease of course varies from one person to another, but there are some basic assumptions about benign self-interest that one can make, which may be used to describe and predict human action collectively, leading to the field of economics.
d2b4fa No.572868
>>572699
The system worked until they deliberately crashed it to switch to an other system that doesn't work.
6cdb54 No.572876
>>572856
>cultural marxism wasn't invented by kikes
This is your brain on talmud.
909737 No.572878
>>572856
Who do you think supports those communist shits?
d2b4fa No.572908
>>572859
According to Spengler you are completely wrong. There are no such thing as ancient times, only pre-historic and historic; but that's beside the point. The concept of government spring from the concept of state, and the concept of state is always invented by the citizenry as a high culture evolves into a civilization. Priests and nobles are the two ruling classes, but they don't have a state; they rule because they have the iron and the word to dominate the common folk. Then the denizens of the cities invent the concept of the state to challenge their power. In a way it's an illusion, but it's also very real, for they refer to the bureaucratic systems of a country. Then they will strive to strengthen said systems as a way to vie power from both aristocratic groups. It's nothing new, the same thing happened at least half-a-dozen times before. E.g. Rome didn't have anything like a state until the republic started to collapse. In time these bureaucratic systems that are now called state will be controlled by various cliques, and all cliques will have their own leader. That is Caesarism.
0bb131 No.572921
>>572740
There he fucking goes, down to a letter and even thinks faceberg doesn't have a monopoly or the size to become a public utility.
>>>/suicide/ lolberg.
Or better yet, show me your facebook alternative!
>>572743
(((Social media)))
>>572741
During the hearing zuck himself said there's a free market incentive to protect people's personal data (^:
>>572746
>site that relies on its userbase
>dude, just write your own facebook for 2 people lmao, fair competition with 2 billion ZOG tool (^:
>>572753
>Rockefeller straight-up bribed government officials to keep his competition in check.
Without government he'd pay significantly less to a heroin addict to murder his competition.
>>572777
>all people are inherently good but X is moving them away from it
X being
<Society
<Family
<Race
<Racism
<Weather
<Income
<Gubmint ✔
<muh fee fees
thanks for outing yourself as one of the flavors of a leftist retard.
>>572788
After playing by the rules and succeeding for long enough to amass capital, I create a biggest, baddest, nuclear equipped and self-sufficient nation of mercenaries for the sole purpose of violating the NAP of every individualitistist™
What now?
>>572823
There will be always less police and the army than citizens, meanwhile, the McMegacorp can buy out your buddies or have mercenaries from around the globe because tyrannical government wants people to oppress, and not piles of bones, blood and rubble, that's why the only means ZOG employs against americans are the police gungrabbing and not strafing blocks with A10's or drone strikes.
650fa3 No.574009
>>572812
>>572814
>>572815
>>572816
>>572817
Capped for future reference. Nice work, strelok.
2301e1 No.574040
>>574009
It was specifically Anarco-capitalism anon not libertarianism.
2301e1 No.574041
249668 No.574047
20de7b No.574119
>>572613
>tfw only had something close to this once [spoiler several years ago [/spoiler]
what does it feel like, to feel?
to have another human want to be intimate with you, to enjoy your presence, and to not tolerate it, but instead prefer it
living is suffering
b8bc45 No.574161
>>572921
>There he fucking goes, down to a letter and even thinks faceberg doesn't have a monopoly or the size to become a public utility.
>no argument
Kill yourself, you anti-intellectual faggot
0bb131 No.574251
>>574161
Waiting for your facebook alternative (^:
b8bc45 No.574339
>>574251
Define alternative. Facebook doesn't sell a product besides ad space to companies and there are thousands of advertising venues. I already explained this in one of my posts, you retarded mongrel.
0bb131 No.574340
>>574339
>56% lolberg has audacity to call anyone else a mongrel
>defends facebook
IS THERE A FREE MARKET INCENTIVE TO PROTECT USER DATA, MR ZUCKERBERG?!
ad3fab No.574346
>>574340
There's a free market incentive not to sign away your privacy rights if you don't want a company selling your data. The people on Facebook right now gave Zuckerberg their data willingly; they'll kvetch about it a bit if Facebook does something they don't like with that data, but at the end of the day they won't care enough to stop using Facebook or stop giving Facebook more data to use, because getting a few more likes is that much more important to them.
0bb131 No.574347
>>574346
>company abusing human flaws like the desire for acknowledgement and judgement for the sake of profit is fault of the people
>writing ToS in legalese not meant to be understood by average human is morally okay
how come despite being such an ubermensch you're still a retarded lolberg who manages to suppress the cognitive dissonance regarding human nature?
ad3fab No.574359
>company abusing human flaws like the desire for acknowledgement and judgement for the sake of profit is fault of the people
You can fulfill that desire wherever you want; plenty of people choose to do their socializing on places other than Facebook, because they're capable of making independent decisions instead of blindly following the crowd.
Whether something is "morally" okay or not isn't on its own enough to ban the market practice. Salesmen will use emotional baiting and other manipulative tactics to get you to buy shit, for instance, and "morally" that's not great. But at the same time they aren't forcing you into anything, it's still your choice whether you want to think critically about the purchase, or turn your brain off and give the nice smiling man more of your money. "Let the buyer beware," as the saying goes.
<writing ToS in legalese not meant to be understood by average human is morally okay
Again, let the buyer beware. The users of facebook chose to sign ToS written in legalese, even though they didn't understand what they were signing. They could have easily walked away instead of reading the fine print, but they didn't, because they decided they were okay with not knowing what they were getting into. Even without reading the fine print, any thinking man should be aware that if you're getting something for "free," YOU are the product. Either you'll be shown a bunch of ads or the way you interact with the product is somehow monetizable. And honestly? you can't even claim ignorance at this point. Near everyone on Facebook right now knows that everything they put on there is going to be sold or analyzed, this is practically common knowledge right now. But they keep doing it, because they don't care. They've made the decision that a lack of privacy is a fair price for the services that Facebook provides.
6ab234 No.574364
>>574359
>The users of facebook chose to sign ToS written in legalese, even though they didn't understand what they were signing.
This. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
6da3df No.574367
Does anybody have a link to the sources of the information on the number of missiles, a what missiles were launched,and how many were shot down?
1505cd No.574372
>>574347
<writing ToS in legalese not meant to be understood by average human is morally okay
Ignorantia juris non excusat. Oldest legal principle there is.
693bd6 No.574374
>>574359
>ToS are legally binding
TOP KEK
O
P
K
E
K
A ToS is a commercial contract. It's not because someone contract someone to kill a third that it's suddenly legal.
Faceberg and cie datamining is ILLEGAL in virtue of a gazillion of privacy laws at various levels and dangerously even bordering infractions on a fucking constitutional level (IE actual "human rights", the ones you're born with).
Doesn't matter that they put in their ToS "we own you and all of your offspring until the 7th generation".
>even though they didn't understand what they were signing.
This right there is proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
If anyone can prove in good faith that they didn't understand a contract, the contract is ALWAYS void.
That's one of the basis of contractual law and one of the few "natural" breach of contract.
And contractual law is largely ROMAN LAW, IE it's been like this for 2000 years. It has a pretty solid track record.
The advent of the computers has allowed the creation of the ridiculous fifteen pages ToS no-one read (quite often not even the emitter of the contract given how C/C is often used for those) but at the the time it has guaranteed that shit isn't even remotely bidding.
Hell the simple fact that 90% of the time you are only made aware of the ToS AFTER purchase make them void too (caveat emptor doesn't apply to them, it's caveat venditor: seller beware. Caveat emptor has always been a special rule, not the regular one).
It's plain US legal "culture" of anti-justice, IE legal threats and legal covers are more important than actual respect of the law.
ToS like that are made EXCLUSIVELY to scare and bully people with judicial costs, the minute anyone with enough time and money contest them they win (which typically is only EU-based consumer rights defenders NGOs).
ad3fab No.574379
>>574374
>ILLEGAL in virtue of a gazillion of privacy laws at various levels
In the context of a hypothetical ancapistan, individual legislation is irrelevant.
>a fucking constitutional level (IE actual "human rights", the ones you're born with).
Which ones? You've got life, liberty, and property. Unless Facebook has some LWDS of which I'm not aware it's not the first. It's not the second, because Facebook has a right to do what it wants with its property. And it's not property rights either, because users chose to put their data onto Facebook, and IP doesn't exist as property outside of government fiat, because it has no scarcity.
>If anyone can prove in good faith that they didn't understand a contract, the contract is ALWAYS void.
Not bother to read something (which is to what I was referring) is not the same as a genuine lack of understanding.
>Hell the simple fact that 90% of the time you are only made aware of the ToS AFTER purchase make them void too (caveat emptor doesn't apply to them, it's caveat venditor: seller beware. Caveat emptor has always been a special rule, not the regular one).
If true this makes sense, but most EULAs are made in the installation process, before you actually start using the product.
ad3fab No.574381
>>574379
I'd just like to clarify that I'm not trying to defend Facebook, they're shit, as is Zuckerber and most of the people using Facebook at the moment. I just think "rooooo! Facebook is oppressing me!" is a ridiculous claim to make.
693bd6 No.574408
>>574379
>Which ones?
Liberty.
The whole concept of "freedom of the press" can be applied to "freedom of the social networks".
Freedom of the press is literal and tied to the press (action of pressing, by extension printing). Prior to the US revolution all pressing was to be authorized and review by kings as pressing was only a lord right (be it to make floor, oil, wine or reading materials).
Blessed were the days were you didn't have ancap retards saying "this is fine, you can still copy books by hands". Because you could. But, somewhat, it was a fucking pain in the ass, so everyone agreed that no-one should have a controlling monopoly on what people write, publish (and think) and a set of very clear rules about it. And they did so by taking into account the technical capacities of their time which led to the freedom of the "press".
And if a blueblooded wise man, raised since childhood to understand the highest and most complex matter of state affairs and society, shouldn't have that right, fucking Faceberg SJW soyboy PR team really really shouldn't have it either.
b8bc45 No.574432
>>574340
>>defends facebook
Where the fuck do you see me defending Facebook? I'm just explaining to you how you're a fucking retard who doesn't know what a monopoly is and how you're wrong. I don't use Facebook because I'm not a fucking consumeristic whore, unlike you.
>IS THERE A FREE MARKET INCENTIVE TO PROTECT USER DATA, MR ZUCKERBERG?!
Uh, yeah, the incentive to not lose and hemmorage userbase and thus lose stock value and your actual customers, companies that advertise
Also
>le 56% xD
>le lolberg xD
Please go back to /pol/eddit, you underaged faggot. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you keep barking out and lashing like a rabid dog. You need to be put down.
ad3fab No.574454
>>574408
>government mass regulation of of printing presses is the same thing as Facebook using their private property as they see fit.
That's retarded. Facebook has a market incentive not to be censorious faggots, because users will flock to platforms that let them say what shit they want (which is exactly what's happening right now). It's not in the slightest equivalent to your analogy, in which pressers maintained their monopoly even if extremely unpopular, because it was granted and enforced by the king.
3f21bc No.574491
>world turns into Ancapistan
>a company owns an extremely important mountain pass
>everyone is free to use it, but they take a picture of you, and also record your name and date-of-birth
>then tell sell the information to local warlords
>said warlords use that info to hunt down people they want for various reasons, ranging from killing rivals to kidnapping children for their harem
>there really is no alternative to that mountain pass in the entire region
<fine though, you JUST have to, like, MAKE A NEW PASS!
ad3fab No.574500
>>574491
>extremely contrived scenario with no basis in reality
>only tangential relation to topic at hand
<OMG PWNED HOW WILL YOU RECOVER ATHEISTS 1 ANCAPS 0 !!1! XDDDD
What the fuck, Hungary? But even if we accept this ridiculous scenario, it's far from untenable
>extremely important mountain pass
Even if we take it as a given that there are somehow zero alternatives to this one singular pass (air travel, a fucking tunnel, whatever), it's a bit of a stretch to say absolutely everyone is required to use it; if conditions are shit enough that people don't want to undergo them they'd just not use the pass and consider themselves better off without.
>said warlords use that info to hunt down people they want for various reasons, ranging from killing rivals to kidnapping children for their harem
You say this like there aren't any consequences for this action. Conspiring to kidnap and commit murder is very much an act of aggression and a case that's easily brought to court, both for the owners of the pass and these mysterious warlords (ignoring for the moment where they came from and how they sustain themselves). So even if we take BOTH of the first two points (that there's no alternative to this pass, AND that it's impossible not to use the pass) as givens, the resultant consequence is still unrealistic.
0bb131 No.574504
>>574432
>Uh, yeah, the incentive to not lose and hemmorage userbase and thus lose stock value and your actual customers, companies that advertise
Also, profit clearly isn't the faceberg's priority since to maximize it they'd be incentivized to sell data of every user data, including "racist bigoted fascists"
You're a fucking retard because you can easily use social engineering PR to prevent that for long enough to bail before people finally get angry.
>>574491
Just don't use the pass!
Build a plane company from ground up ignoring the power the McmountainPass™ corp has while you have a cesna and a strip of concrete
2a0f0b No.574555
>>574500
> they'd just not use the pass
Do you not see the failure of basic logic with this? Someone needs to get to point A to point B. Company has a complete monopoly on those means. You can't just say 'well lel don't go to point B', if the guy is completely restricted from going from point A to point B it is a marked failure of ancap. It'd be more realistic for the people owning the mountain pass to charge anyone moving through out the ass, as there's intrinsically no competition because it's a geological feature that will always be the more practical option for travelers rather than air travel. How else is anyone going to take that mountain pass besides force? What if someone is moving home, as in, the company on the either side has better Rent™, so the company with worse Rent™ just pays the pass to block travelers? Literally any situation besides a singular person. How would another company move heavy equipment through said pass? They'd either pay gorrillions, or more economically, hire a merc force and take it at gunpoint. Shit, while I'm on this, why do you think companies wouldn't claim land for themselves or form factions & alliances to bypass the intangible unenforceable NAP and steamroll everyone? At that point they're just feudal city-states and you have government again. What's unrealistic here is your ungodly naivety.
>that's easily brought to court, both for the owners of the pass and these mysterious warlords
What court, you monumental retard? The entire core principle is that there is no all-powerful court and it all gets sorted out magically through corporate competition.
ad3fab No.574565
>>574555
>Someone needs to get to point A to point B. Company has a complete monopoly on those means.
And the natural question is "why?" This dumbass scenario only works because the author demands that you accept his premise that there's only one path between Point A and Point B, which is retarded. It's just an edgier version of "muh roads"
>What court, you monumental retard?
Private arbitration has always been a staple of ancap philosophy.
https://mises.org/library/state-or-private-law-society
b8bc45 No.574698
>>574504
>Also, profit clearly isn't the faceberg's priority since to maximize it they'd be incentivized to sell data of every user data, including "racist bigoted fascists"
Except then all their users would leave and advertisers would then leave, you dumb cunt.
Please, like I suggested earlier, just kill yourself. You're clearly a waste of your nation's resources.
0bb131 No.574747
>>574698
>people right of Lenin don't: eat, drive cars, do shopping, drink, have friends, travel, wear clothes, own phones, or exist
are you retarded or just a faceberg employee?
650fa3 No.574748
>>574454
>That's retarded. Facebook has a market incentive not to be censorious faggots, because users will flock to platforms that let them say what shit they want (which is exactly what's happening right now).
I'd be very interested if you could list any such platforms. Please, I insist.
0bb131 No.574750
>>574748
There's like 5 people on (((Gab.ai))) (^:
ebca08 No.574752
>>574454
Except in reality they are a bunch of censorious faggots. And it's not even a new thing, they were deleting milquetoast MRA groups left and right off their site 5 to 6 years ago becuase thier safety & abuse team was filled with feminist cunts even back then.
And in general, Silicon Valley business strategies aren't concerned with things like viable profit sources (Why care when you get funny money lol) and focus on driving the competition out of business and securing monopolies.
Like, you know, fucking Faceberg did when they murdered half a dozen other social media sites that weren't selling every scrap of data and working with literal scammers to fleece the people in their community.
Or how Uber and Lyft are trying to do with cab drivers.
650fa3 No.574755
>>574750
It truly boggles the mind how lolbergs can try and explain away modern monopolies on the internet. For fuck's sake, we have the perfect example of monopoly in the postmortem of why Vidme went under:
>Want to make alternative to Youtube, which requires hosting thousands upon thousands of videos
>Hosting thousands upon thousands of videos requires massive servers
>Massive servers require lots of money
>Options for making money from video hosting:
<Accept sponsors
>No-one will sponsor you if you have no users
>Monetise content with ads
<No-one will want to host ads with you if you have no users
<Make viewers pay a subscription
>No-one in their right mind would pay such a subscription for a site with no content
<Make content creators pay for hosting
>No-one in their right mind would pay such a subscription for a site with no users
>CONCLUSION: Unless everyone telepathically agrees to migrate over to a smaller site and deal with the issues therein, there cannot be any real competition for Youtube.
Every point in this list also applies to a service like Faceberg.
650fa3 No.574756
>>574755
>Fucked up the green/redtext order in the middle of the list
b8bc45 No.574764
>>574747
>still no arguments
>resorts to babbling like an idiot
Amazing. You're probably not even Polish, you're probably just a retarded Canadian using a Polish VPN or some shit.
>>574755
>It truly boggles the mind how lolbergs can try and explain away modern monopolies on the internet.
I just explained it in a single post: You can't have a monopoly if users aren't your customers or your service isn't your product and you can't have monopolies on software. Hell, you just practically admitted that Youtube doesn't have a monopoly because their product is ad space, and there are plenty of places online to host ad space, not just competing Youtube-like services. Lack of competition or a large marketshare =/= a monopoly, Monopolies also need to control the chain of production through vertical intigration. Saying any sort of website has a monopoly is like saying a local newspaper with no competitors has a monopoly. Quit being fucking retarded. Nobody forces anybody to use Facebook, or Youtube, or whatever site. I bet you'd say cuckchan has a monopoly on Futaba-based Internet imageboards too, right?
650fa3 No.574787
>>574764
Alright then, how would you describe Faceberg and Youtube being completely uncontested in their respective spheres? Even knowing of their shady doings with user data and social engineering, how could any sort of market competition POSSIBLY threaten them, considering the points in my post above? "Muh viewers and sponsors leaving" clearly doesn't fucking work, because they're pretty much all still there.
Oh, and although I know you're not the anon I asked this to, I'm still waiting for a single viable Youtube/Faceberg alternative to be named.
19bb03 No.574790
Is the S300 or 400 able to shoot aircraft in neighboring countries from a russian or from the Syrian capital?
b8bc45 No.574793
>>574787
>Alright then, how would you describe Faceberg and Youtube being completely uncontested in their respective spheres?
Uncontested in what? You keep missing my point: In order to have a monopoly you have to not only have either the largest or only market share of a product or service but also control the production of each product. You seem to think that in the case of Facebook and Youtube that the product the company produces is the service for the users, and the customers are the users. This is wrong. The users are consumers, but the customers are advertisers and entities that buy data. You can't have a monopoly with users when all the userbase does is consume a service without a fee, and they certainly do not have a monopoly over their actual product: advertising. What part about this do you and the notPolish anon not understand? Furthermore Facebook and Youtube are only uncontested if you're a sheep who only uses Facebook and Youtube. Sure your argument about "but smaller sites are smaller and have less services" is true but you need to realize that Internet based services do not operate the same as real world services.
>Even knowing of their shady doings with user data and social engineering, how could any sort of market competition POSSIBLY threaten them
What "market competition" are you talking about? Again, Facebook doesn't sell its services to the users, neither does Youtube, and nothing is stopping users from using Facebook as well as other social media platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, MySpace, etc. at the same time. You can't have competition with the users when the users can use both Facebook and the alternatives at the same time without fees, since the users of Facebook are not being sold a product or service.
>"Muh viewers and sponsors leaving" clearly doesn't fucking work, because they're pretty much all still there.
So?
>Oh, and although I know you're not the anon I asked this to, I'm still waiting for a single viable Youtube/Faceberg alternative to be named.
Why does anybody in this thread need to name alternatives? You're missing the point of anything I've posted if you're still stuck on this: Alternatives to Facebook do not matter because they'd operate the same way as Facebook.
The users are consumers, not customers purchasing a product
The product isn't the service the consumers use, it's the ad space, user data, and other things on the service itself that is the product
The service Facebook or Youtube host is provided to the consumers and thus isn't the product they profit off of.
The intended customers for these products are advertisers, marketers, and other companies.
This is really god damn simple. I don't know how you can't grasp this. Would you call yourself a customer of 8ch just because you use it?
650fa3 No.574796
>>574793
I completely and totally understand that the users of these sites aren't its customers. The point I'm trying to make in reference to finding an alternative is that relying on market pressure to fix all your problems means services like Youtube and Faceberg can get away with selling all of their users' data, or pushing agendas on the societal scale, simply because their services to the user will never be challenged. Just saying "lmao don't use them then" isn't good enough when your average normalfag doesn't even know they're being taken advantage of.
4eb1e8 No.574798
>>574790
Yes, if they fly at their service ceiling. S-400 has a range of 400km (250 miles), but at that range an aircraft can hide behind the curvature of the earth.
If a fighter is flying at 10,000m (33,000 feet) then the S-400 can't see the fighter at its maximum range, the fighters would have to come within 357km range to be detectable.
If the fighter flies at 1km (3300 feet) it would be invisible from S-400 until a range of 112km.
If the fighter flies at 10m (33 feet) which is terrain contour flying, it would be invisible until 11km from target, which is well within fire and forget missile range.
And if the aircraft flies fast enough, like mach numbers, its missiles can cross that 11km in less time than it takes the SAM crew to detect, target, slew missiles and fire.
That's what Su-34 was designed for, traveling at high mach numbers low to the ground. The aircraft itself can cross a SAM detection gap to gun range in 20 seconds. But if it uses an anti-radiation missile, that time is cut below 10 seconds, in fact as low as 5 seconds depending on missile.
What SAM crew in the world can detect a fighter, identify it, target it, launch a missile, and have that missile hit in 5-10 seconds from the first radar glimpse? None. The ultimate SEAD machine.
It's effectively better than stealth.
693bd6 No.574802
>>574798
Yeah but no Russian S-300 or S-400 battery is going anywhere without at least Pantsir-S2 point defense.
The next version of Pantsir has range stupid enough to close completely the 100km gap (while current only close the 20 to 40km gap)
b8bc45 No.574806
>>574796
>normalfags
I think I found your problem.
4eb1e8 No.574807
>>574798
Here's a quick visual depiction of what I mean in pic 1.
>>574802
Aktcshually!
The Pantsir system has been obsolete for close to five years now.
S-400 batteries are protected by the Morfey system (pic2), which has instantaneous 360 degree coverage, and no man in the loop. The moment the automated system detects a missile with a vector towards it, it fires. If the IFF shows friendly after the Morfey fires, its missile self destructs in the air.
So yeah the low and fast approach is rapidly becoming difficult to carry out, but so far Russia is the only one with such defenses, so hugging the ground still works on 190+ countries.
b8bc45 No.574898
>>574807
> which has instantaneous 360 degree coverage
How does that work?
693bd6 No.574901
>Aktcshually!
Aktcshually Morfei are the Tor equivalent for air defense regiments, meaning it's the missile point defense, Pantsir being the gun point defense. Neither replace the other.
Russian AD is a millefeuille that go Point Defense (platoon level)-> Short Range (company level) -> Medium Range (brigade level) -> Long Range (theater level) which each bubble in fact overlapping like roof tiles and with each system being designed depending it's application and maintenance by it's parent units.
Roughly for (modern) air defense unit it goes:
Panstsir/Morfei->Vityaz->S-400->S-500.
For (legacy) army rifleman it goes:
Igla/Osa->Strela-10->Buk-M1-2->S-300VM
For (modern) army tank it goes:
Tunguska/Tor-M2->Sosna-R->Buk-M3->S-300V4
There are no S-400 or Pantsir* in the Russian Army, they belong to the Russian Airforce (which doesn't field short range air defense, only point, medium, theater and front. So they need more overlap between point and medium).
Similarly the infantry units have amphibious vehicles, the tanks unit don't, army vehicles are tracked (and armored), Airforce are wheeled (and light-skinned)** for obvious reason (one has to be able to move in depth and possibly under enemy fire, the other only need to move tactically).
So far so good. The problem is those systems aren't made by the same companies (KPB, Almaz, Fakel, Novator) meaning the rate of tech breakthrough and upgrade is all over the place. Add a various rate of replacement for the usual military reasons and you end up with some point defense system being more powerful than short range air defense (and catching up to medium range) which leads to a gigantic amount of confusion.
*Pantsir were supposed to replace Tunguskas and a tracked Pantsir exist but AFAIK they were never adopted out side of the new arctic regiments that are getting new arctic proof gear on DT-30PM twin tracked carriers. For point defense they get both Pantsir and Tor.
**Again that's a general rule, it's not 100% true. Russian units can deviate pretty far from standards but patterns exists.
ad3fab No.574903
>>574752
> And it's not even a new thing, they were deleting milquetoast MRA groups left and right off their site 5 to 6 years ago becuase thier safety & abuse team was filled with feminist cunts even back then.
And now those kinds of people don't use facebook and use other services instead. The ones that are left on that site are the ones who don't give a shit about the censorship or data sale (because their needs as customers are being met), or are they type to censor themselves away from anything that hurts their fee-fees anyways. These people want a hugbox, and facebook is meeting demand.
>Or how Uber and Lyft are trying to do with cab drivers.
>multiple companies=monopoly
Uber and Lyft are successful because they're not over-regulated in the way cab companies are, allowing them to provide a superior service at a lower price. It's an example of the market succeeding, you doublenigger, not failing.
>>574755
Bitchute, dailymotion, niche sites like Full30, and others are competing against Youtube just fine. Competing in the market doesn't mean you should make a clone of your competitor's product, quite the opposite in most cases.
>your average normalfag doesn't even know they're being taken advantage of.
Your average normalfag knows, they just don't give a shit. Which is just fine imo as far as the market is concerned, they're satisfied with the product they're receiving so there's no impetus for them to seek something else. And why should they if what they have now is exactly what they want? "Competitors" to Youtube and the like will succeed by providing something Youtube does not, to people that don't like Youtube, rather than just trying to make a copy of Youtube. And this is where websites like Full30 or bitchute succeed, they're explicitly catering to the people who don't like Youtube, instead of trying to court people that don't object to Youtube's practices and see no reason to change.
4eb1e8 No.574941
>>574898
It's a spherical AESA antenna, and the launch system is vertical.
ea9fe9 No.574969
>>574903
>Uber and Lyft are successful because they're not over-regulated in the way cab companies are, allowing them to provide a superior service at a lower price. It's an example of the market succeeding, you doublenigger, not failing.
They're actually running at a loss, though. Call me paranoid, but I don't trust what they'll do after they drive regular cabs out of business. Normalfags, being the high time preference NPCs they are, don't care about this because muh cheap shit.
0bb131 No.574973
>>574969
Did you know that self-driving uber cars have a liability clause that says if a CIA nigger hacking the onboard computer terrible accident ends your life, nobody is responsible?
And especially not uber?
ea9fe9 No.574975
>>574973
Market success: wages are driven down and assassinations are easier than ever.
4eb1e8 No.574978
>>574969
>hey're actually running at a loss, though.
They went from 0 to 15 billion in assets in 9 years, and have an annual revenue of 8 billion.
"Running at a loss" may be what they tell their drivers so they can fleece them more, but that company is wildly successful.
aaa06e No.575011
>>574969
>They're actually running at a loss, though.
>I don't trust what they'll do after they drive regular cabs out of business
Even if they are "running at a loss," predatory pricing isn't a real or sustainable practice, and there is no evidence of it occurring at any point in history.
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons
>>574973
If the price is lowered far enough that people are willing to accept the risk of no liability then there's nothing wrong with that at all; people who aren't willing to sign away liability won't ride in autonomous cars. Most indoor climbing gyms and the like make you sign a liability form, that doesn't mean they're all deathtraps.
693bd6 No.575022
cc64ec No.575056
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>war tracks thread
>no war tracks being posted
fb3145 No.575998
abbc03 No.576688
No one's talking about this? Russia's saying it will take "direct action" in response to whoever launched this attack on an Iranian base in Syria…and Greatest Ally is the prime suspect for the instigator of these attacks.
http://archive.fo/DCzd5
e3edbc No.576697
>>576688
>Israel has nuked Syria!
Okay, sure thing buddy. That'll definitely make me take the site seriously.
abbc03 No.576704
>>576697
If you scroll down you'll see that was only initial speculation and they don't think it's a nuke at this point.