/k/ - Weapons

No comments is always cancer but at least he restored the flag.

We need to bully Ian out of his faggotry, it is unacceptable in a gun owner.

He compared Rhodesia to the Confederate States of America in terms of arms development in his R76 & M77 video. Maybe I'm just a bit touchy but the tone in his voice betrayed his feelings and it seemed like he was trying to make people dislike Rhodesia by comparing it to the CSA.

I've got nothing against the CSA but bugmen do

>>589697

Slave labor creates the same problem as automatization though.

>>589698

Not sure what you mean by this. Slave labor slows down an economy in the long term while automation increases quality of life and makes growth occur faster.

>>589702

How exactly does it improve people's lives if it robs them of work?

>>589702

The difference between industrial slave labour and automatization that in one of them you replace humans with machines, and in the other one you replace humans with slaves. In the Roman Empire the economic life was wrecked becasue latifundiums and manufactures simply took away the jobs of all the peasants and craftsmen, and without them there was no middle class any more.

>>589713

>How exactly does it improve people's lives if it robs them of work?

Because it doesn't really rob them of work if you look at the whole economy. Automation reduces costs, which is increases the amount of disposable income people have available. More disposable income means consumers purchase save more and purchase more goods, which requires producers to expand their facilities to meet demand. That expansion takes the form of hiring more people, and as a result automation leads to a net increase of jobs in the economy.

>>589715

Oh, I'm well aware of that, I don't dispute it. Automation doesn't have the same effect, however.

>>589698

Yes but machines don't play on emotions of the softhearted in the population to get freed of the factory, and then run around for 100 years raping and murdering the most honest and decent people in your society.

>>589701

No.

A murderer is hanged on a tree to show everyone that, although he faced someone in battle and won, this battle was not sanctioned by the community and is a detriment to good order. His crime is displayed to passers-by to show that such an act is not permissible.

A faggot is put in a wooden cage and thrown into a swamp, where the executioner will press with his foot on the cage until it sinks completely. This is because the sin of faggotry is so terrible, that a community should not even acknowledge its presence.

Friendly reminder that Ian must hang from the highest possible tree or pole for being an AntiFaggot and anti-white.

>>589713

>>589717

And that's not mentioning the fact that machines make stuff cheaper, whether its food, bullets or transportation. That means quality of life goes up for them and everyone else, since people can afford shit that was previously priced through the ceiling. Even if they have to deal with the shitty experience of losing a job and looking for a new one.

>>589718

Problems with niggers aren't the same as problems with automation.

>>589717

Let's see what happens if we replace but a single word.

>Outscoring reduces costs, which is increases the amount of disposable income people have available. More disposable income means consumers purchase save more and purchase more goods, which requires producers to expand their facilities to meet demand. That expansion takes the form of hiring more people, and as a result outscoring leads to a net increase of jobs in the economy.

Of course you can claim that they did expand their facilities, they just did it in the countries where those facilities are located. But what makes you think that the expansion of facilities will lead to the creation of new jobs for people, when they can just use their profits to increase automatization even more?

>>589720

And again.

>Outscoring make stuff cheaper, whether its food, bullets or transportation. That means quality of life goes up for them and everyone else, since people can afford shit that was previously priced through the ceiling. Even if they have to deal with the shitty experience of losing a job and looking for a new one.

>>589722

That only works if the place you outsource it doesn't place tariffs or sanctions on imports from your country.

For example:

1. Chinese workers can't make laptops, but can make cellphones

2. We outsource making a cellphone to China

3. American customers get cheaper cellphones

4. All the Americans who worked on cellphones switch to making laptops

5. Chinese customers buy American laptops which are cheaper and better than theirs

That's just an exchange of labor so they do what they're best at, and we do what we're best at, and both of us benefit.

However this is what really happens:

1. We outsource making a cellphone to China

2. American customers get cheaper cellphones

3. Chinese customers can't buy American laptops due to sanctions

4. All the Americans who worked on cellphones switch to welfare

^^^ this is the unfair and stupid part, not the actual outsourcing ^^^

China is playing games with their currency and bureaucracy to prevent equal exchange of labor, it ends up being only one-way, and they benefit while we suffer. It's parasitism.

>>589721

>Let's see what happens if we replace but a single word.

I agree completely, actually. Outsourcing per se isn't a problem because the only jobs that are outsourced are those sectors where your economy isn't competitive anyways, which frees up domestic labor and capital to work in your competitive sector, which is to say your export sector. The "problem" with outsourcing is that unions, the Fed, and a fuckton of regulations means that our competitive sectors aren't as competitive as they could be. And removing these regulations and barriers will not only make export sectors more competitive, it improves the entire economy.

>But what makes you think that the expansion of facilities will lead to the creation of new jobs for people, when they can just use their profits to increase automatization even more?

Like with outsourcing, the answer is comparative advantage. Machines are naturally more inclined for some tasks, while people are better suited for others. Replacing these latter jobs with machinery would either cause an increase in costs, which defeats the entire point, or it's completely impossible. This guy >>589727 also brings up good points.

what happened to the last thread?

>>589749

Australian BO deleted it as a shitpost

>>589750

Shame. Should have anchored it just to mess with the faggot who started it.

>>589747

that faggots sissy sounding voice drives me insane, I want to shoot him in the face so bad

>>589701

>Ian and Karl are fucking queers who should be hanged.

>queers

No they're not. And they're not commies either.

What has you butt-blasted is that they're not pushing for a final solution to your JQ.

>>589718

>Yes but machines don't play on emotions of the softhearted in the population to get freed of the factory, and then run around for 100 years raping and murdering the most honest and decent people in your society.

I am looking for Sarah Connor.

>>589776

>s-socialist men aren't weak

>pulls out airsoft AK

>s-see oni-chan I'm not weak anymore

gets me every time

>>589776

*hand start shaking*

lmao

>>589782

Do you ever wonder why people don't take you seriously? I agree with the AI results tho, computers don't lie, they compute.

>>589787

I don't know how to feel about Asimov, I liked his work, but he is a Jew, and even Jews that seem good on the surface are always bad in nature

>>589776

>obese

>balding

>faggy voice

>beard to obscure baby-tier jawline

>has to pull out Airshit to pretend he's strong

>can't even hold it in one hand

>>589787

His zionist pro-degeneracy anti-Aryan goy-patronizing views are very poorly concealed in his books.

>>589813

So it's state-perpetrated genocide by all definitions but we don't call them genocide because?…

>>589821

because genocide is only for jews.

>>589782

A pure logic AI would logically conclude that a genetically distinct 15% of the population engaging in 50% of murder is unacceptable.

That's why leftists at Google are purposely making broken artificial intelligences that rank blacks over whites.

>>589826

But Blacks make up 13% and it's mostly young whi- eh black males less than 5% that commit 52% of all murders.

>>589830

That's a dumb argument, you can make anyone sound like anyone else. Take Hitler quotes about economy and read them to communists. They'll agree. Then tell them who's the author and enjoy the rage.

>>589831

>Germany gets triggered

sorry, you're not allowed to defend yourself.

>>589831

What? Retard it's not an argument.

He's saying that government organized seizure of property, rape and murder of an ethnic group is not genocide. Under that retarded claim I cropped in screencaps of the definition of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

It's not an argument, it's a complete refutation of his opinion. There's no wiggle room to "argue" in, he's just fucking wrong.

>>589776

I don't like either Nazis or Commies. They're both idiotic collectivist movements embraced by people who have accomplished nothing noteworthy and are hoping to leach off the success of others.

Wernher von Braun was a pioneer of rocketry and deserves all the credit he gets for his pivotal role in advancing science and engineering. Joseph Goebbels was a sniveling manlet whose only talents revolved around propaganda. The former is a titan who shaped the world, the latter is a parasite on the ass of society. Deal with it.

And before you call me a commie, commies had the exact same problems, and it dragged on for a hell of a lot longer.

>>589833

Fuckin spoiler that shit. It's worse than a skinwalker's asshole.

>>589831

They sound like good ideas to socialists because he was a socialist. This isn't an unpopular idea around here, but the "left vs right" politics argument has just been left vs left since 1920

>>589838

>They're both idiotic

Ah, my mistake. Vid related, this one is you.

>>589770

>inviting crossdressers with them to the shoot

>having crossdressers in the background of an otherwise serious gun video

>making reference to gay prostitution with crossdressers in the background of an otherwise serious gun video

It is 100% over the line, and they are both cocksucking faggots. Fuck off.

>>589862

>/pol/tard thinks sucking dicks is gay

Homosexuality is a requirement for being a skinhead, anon, as is jerking it to interracial cuckolding.

>>589844

All I know is he missed out on touching some oddball milsurp shit and had to cancel an airplane ride over his SA shit.

>>589776

>>589773

>Friendly reminder chairman mao and Fidel Castro were the biggest fag killers before aids

If communists were half gay as they are today. Cold War would’ve ended in less than 8 years.

>>589713

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7fuLn28RTc

Read the Candle Maker's Petition, I'm not libertarian, but this work shows the utter retarded, mouth breathing stupidity of the labor movement and its values. Labor's ideal is the entire population is split up into two groups, one whose job is to dig holes, the other group's job is to fill those holes, thus we create eternal job security, all the while forgetting that all of the work is fruitless, pointless, worthless. The end of industry is the production, the value is in the fruit and the product, not in the labor and costs.

Being robbed of work you must do is like being robbed of a kick to the balls. Necessary things are done more efficiently, with less hours and less people, freeing up people to do other work, and allow workers to work less hours and have more leisure. If we become efficient enough, the dream of the 30 hour workweek for those who want it could be a reality, all the work that is necessary could be accomplished easily leaving us more time to pick up other work, do other tasks, or enjoy the fruits of our labors. Necessary work is not a blessing, but a curse. Being "robbed" of it is a blessing, not a curse.

By your mentality we should destroy all industry and technology and descend back into the days of the caveman, or back to the age of subsistence agriculture. There was always work to be done, endless toil and suffering, no job insecurity. How would you like that? We should destroy the washers and dryers so people can go back to work washing clothes by hand, we should destroy and outlaw all water heaters and water pumps so men can be employed, with great job security mind you, carrying and boiling water. We should encourage the vandals to smash every window, so that the windowmaker can have job security. Every automobile should have its tires slashed at least every two months, when everyone is forced to buy new tires it is good for the rubber industry, tire makers, tire shops. Maybe we should just level whole city blocks, destroy entire towns and cities, so that we may rebuild them to keep people employed.

Wealth comes from production and sees its increase in consumption and obtainment by lower prices, not by more fruitless labor and more income. Inefficiencies lead to lower production, which means there is less, which leads to shortages, and people cannot obtain or consume because there isn't enough to go around, no matter how high their wages are, no matter how many hours they work, no matter how much "work" they are not "robbed of". Increase production so there is mass surplus the market is flooded, there is enough for everyone, little to no price competition. low prices, and people can obtain or consume for very little money which requires very little work.

The old worker who toiled 16 hours a day, 7 days a week and was guaranteed his factory job had far less then the average "had it good" guy in the post world war 2 west who might work 40 hours a week, 5 days a week with vacation. Did his being "robbed" of work and hours make him poor, did he suffer from having his work "robbed" from him? People today often have easier work, sometimes work far less, and have far more, should we go back to endless work and suffering and have less so we can all have this blessed work and job security?

Technology and automation are only making things better. There is still plenty to do that automation and technology won't make easier or better, so get going on that. Every time we displace a man from one line of work, we free him to do something else. Instead of working a the factory 60 hours a week, he can work 30 and fix his roof, fix his car, get something else of value done for himself, his family, his community, society. NEET's don't have to be losers, go find a job, and even if you can't be productive in your individual lives, read, write, volunteer, start a business and employ yourself, make yourself a better person, enjoy live, help others.

Labor is completely wrong and its ideas all backwards. Low wages and no labor laws means easy access to labor markets, universal employment, low costs which leads to easily affordable things even with a lower income. High wages, labor laws, rackets, all lead to shortages, controls, high prices, and soon even people with high incomes and wages must borrow money to buy what they used to with cash. Soon work is rationed by politics, people are "lucky" to work overtime as the labor market shrinks creating high wage haves and no work have nots. Watch as your high wages are eaten by the high prices it causes. Watch as you can't buy things at all because they aren't being made because automation is not allowed and people can't work because of enjgineered labor shortages to help boost "muh high wages".

Labor movements are the stupidity and greed of the lower class, and they always rob themselves, and everyone else, of a better life.

>>589871

>projection

>has homosex webm saved

>uses sage as a downvote

The jokes write themselves.

>>589682

I stopped watching his videos recently. while I love seeing the guns taken apart, I cannot stand to support this megacuck

>>589836

Apparently he understands genocide as killing (caedere) of a people (genus) and that's simply not happening>>589713

down there.

"The word "genocide" was coined in 1943 by Polish-Jewish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959) referring to the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust."

I simply cannot contain my laughter in face of the irony. Excuse me, please.

>>589698

A polack would say that.

>>589919

>pic

Hopefully /pol/ at least becomes a containment board for the normalfags, because it's basically a generic, no-fun-allowed, alt-right forum at this point.

>>589838

Nazis and Commies have certainly accomplished noteworthy things. The roleplaying shitposter "online activists" who pretend to be either aren't part of those groups.

>>589715

>muh middle class

Fun fact: state doesn't need middle class.

>>589776

Jesus Christ is his hand shaking??!?!

>>589913

I like how you can't disprove the fact that fag ian is wrong. And wrong in a way that makes him aid the Antifa trannies.

>>589933

>>589711

>>589952

>/pol/ tries to do a geopolitical thread

>it full of amerimutt memes and strawmaning

>/pol/ increasingly becoming anti-second amendment because it Hitler didn’t believe in guns and miniories buy guns too under the second amendment

>/pol/cucks unironically trying to kill people by casting spells by making Norse magic threads

>/christian/ somehow boogyman because they don’t submit to /pol/ hugbox

>/k/ becoming /pol/ boogyman because Gun channel on YouTube are pro military and call out trump

>/pol/ calls others cucks even though the whole board worship Varg a guy who promotes white cuckholding and isn’t bothered by some of kids don’t look like him cause they are still white

Friendly reminder people who think /pol/ are /k/ friends or think /pol/ any better than the faggots from /leftypol/ are stupid.

https://8ch.net/pol/res/11794848.html

https://8ch.net/pol/res/11786262.html

>>589966

While /pol/ has gone down the drain, doesn't change the fact that Ian is a cuck. Also

>posting links

Fucking newfags >>>/pol/11794848

>>589966

Nu-/pol/ is reddit central, don't conflate edgy teenagers with legitimate natsocs and fascists. Ironically, we share more in common ideologically with a blackshirt then we do with the trump-worshipping retards.

>>589969

>the fact that Ian is a cuck.

No disputing that.

>>589973

Nazism isn’t the same thing as fascism. Hell fascism was originally intended to be just for Italians. Original fascism didn’t even have to do with race. It all about self economic improvement and strong nationalism. Nazism is a bastardization of fascism.

>>589697

He also keeps claiming that Rhodesia had apartheid to make people hate it, even though that's a flat our lie and Rhodesia never had apartheid.

>>589711

I love this quote, Ian was trying to point out that youtube are actual evil right-wingers censoring poor POCs and that all the gun channels on youtube should just shut up because no-one is coming after them. He was trying to make out that gun channels are all just paranoid gun nuts.

What he doesn't realise is that the automatic "black" demonetisation thing is to stop right-wing political channels from making political videos regarding black violence or crime or whatever. It's a fucking automated system that does it, youtube aren't evil nazis going out of their way to censor muh poor oppressed POCS. It's a fucking retarded statement to make.

>>589987

It's fascist-derived ideology nonetheless. If anything it could be could called simply expanded fascism, because ethnic homogeneity is a large factor behind nationalism and having a functional market.

>>589978

The ironic thing is I'm more feudalist and defend mercantilism. But, the good parts of mercantilism, not the bad parts. The good parts are where we defend and promote local and domestic industry and keep our own people working and productive. I hate the part, like how Bastiat's work said, where eventually people in industry and labor try to engineer shortages to hurt the people in order to raise prices and justify unnecessary work, force consumption, put competitors out of business by law instead of by offering a better product at a better price, try to make the economy bigger by volume rather than see to it people are well off and get what they need and want.

How has technology been only in the interests of corporations? Hasn't the tractor made life easier and more profitable for the farmer? Hasn't the factory and automation produced large sums of affordable goods that you and everyone else enjoys? Doesn't the computer and telephone, who replaced officer workers and messengers, make life better, communications quicker, shipments and distribution better so people can obtain more? When companies can do things for cheaper and drop the price for the consumer, is this not to the benefit of all? Does not the consumer enjoy the benefits of these technologies and efficiencies more than the companies that produce them?

Many jobs have dissappeared or shrunk, they are no longer needed, because they things they do are done better now, that's a good thing. More people eat from large farms with few workers producing many times the bushels per acre that the divided small old farms did by hand and plow. There would have never been an industrial revolution if there had never been the agricultural one in the first place. The free time we enjoy today and the easier living comes from efficiency, not grinding tech progress to a halt fur "muh jerbs". Inefficiency to protect "muh jerbs" is only going to slow progress or hurl it backwards. Things are more based on productivity than the individual incomes derived therefrom. Labor's approach is backwards and will make us all poorer.

The labor movement and "muh jerbs" is nothing more than an appeal to personal shallow interest. Instead of looking at the bigger picture of what's best for everyone in the end, the lower class man would rather make himself poorer defending his share of the pie instead of getting more pie from making the pie way bigger. "Muh high wages" and "muh good paying jerb" are short sighted PERSONAL objectives, not what we base an entire complex economy around, labor's, and all of socialism's appeal, is appealing to the individual greed of each man. Instead of working towards the greater good of more production and availability they ONLY talk about "your share" and how engineering shortages and inefficiencies that make us all poorer to raise prices will make you richer and better off.

The ultimate fallacy of the common man when it comes to economics is his sense of equating all things to money, and that more money always makes you richer. Consider this: if you are in an economy where your income raises 2% a year while inflation rises 5%, you are poorer with more money. If you are in an economy where your income drops 1% and costs drop 5%, you are richer with less money. But the money worshipping fool will easily be lead down the wrong path of thinking, he will gladly make himself poorer for a little more alimighty dollar. There is no way to convince him that higher prices will make him poorer so long as he gets a sliver of it, and now way to make him understand he is richer when prices plummet if his income drops the tiniest bit.

Yeomen replacing more collectivized farming lead to greater yields and more free hands to do other work, making old society richer and better. The agricultural revolution reduced the number of people need to farm and expanded the population with more food, leading to even more free hands to do even more work and bring about the greatest increase in wealth of all time. Further advances in technology will only help us further, free up more people, reduce our work hours, make a better physical outcome for everyone. The war on automation is almost the same as the war against more privatized yeomanry doing more farming, against the tractor and against the factory.

Again, were we better off at the old full employment or today's partial employment? I want full employment again as well, but crippling and forcing industry backwards is not the answer. We need lower wages and less labor laws, we need to compete with other nations instead of trying to keep wages artificially high, we need to reduce welfare and see reforms to put people back to work, not damage production.

>>590031

Geopolitical thinker, have to study a bit of everything, and one cannot rule a nation nor a fief without a basic understanding of economics. I don't agree with libertarians, nor the classical liberal, nor the Austrian School entirely, but there is something to be said of their ideas on the subject.

>>589993

Didn't nobles just get to fuck over peasants whenever and however they wanted with the only restriction being not to undermine their tax collection too much by depopulating the region? You had nobles taking brides' virginities on the night of their weddings, rape not applicable in the case of a noble on commoner occurence, beating and killing peasants who were on the road and holding up a noble's entourage, so on and so forth. Hell, you had Elizabeth Bathory in Hungary, Gilles de Rais in France, and various other bluebloods all of whom were able to get away with their violent, psychopathic tendencies against commoners for years and were only stopped when it began to affect the nobility around them, all because of "bloodline". And in many places, if you were a peasant and wanted to get away from a terrible lord, turns out there's laws against you moving away from your fief, punishable by imprisonment, fine, or death, too bad. Given how much power nobles had over their "lessers", with virtually no mitigation and commoners being treated as less than human, I don't miss them at all.

>>590053

>Didn't nobles just get to fuck over peasants whenever and however they wanted with the only restriction being not to undermine their tax collection too much by depopulating the region?

Define the time and region. This is how every society works until it turns into a civilization. The same model applies to virtually all societies for at least the last 6000 years.

>You had nobles taking brides' virginities on the night of their weddings

There was no such thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur

>Elizabeth Bathory in Hungary

It's quite likely that her crimes are mere fabrications that were used to arrest and imprision her. Besides, even if it's true, she didn't kill a single noble and yet she was punished.

>>589993

>>590056

Just to clarify, you're a monarchist, yes?

>>590057

No.

>>589966

… Thats still not a refutation of Ian being a retard…

Why do you keep linking my post if you're completely on a different topic??

The truth about this stuff is that most of your wealthy people that deal in or own full auto machine guns, collector grade weapons, or essentially gun stuffs you would have to use an entire year or twos wages on, they tend to be hardcore liberals. The type that have, guns for me and none for you mentality and all the other liberal idiosyncrasies tend to be reflected in their other behaviors and tendencies. Why do you think Ian never wants to talk about politics? Hes always known that his politics are incompatible with his fans, the people giving him money for no good reason.

Regardless its very likely Ian owns alot of cool gun stuff that goes up in value because of liberal policies, so its pretty reasonable to assert like most Americans he will support policies that will increase his standard of living even if that costs others theirs.

People like that buffoon Ted Nugent are abnormalities because they are both wealthy and seemingly on the conservative side (but I think hes just an idiot with money).

TL:DR Rich people are liberals, because if they are not the Jews surrounding them will destroy them.

>>590053

>You had nobles taking brides' virginities on the night of their weddings

Prima Noctis is a victorian fabrication, just like the idea the vikings were serial rapists. There are no contemporary accounts of either EVER happening. In fact there are no accounts mentioning such actions until several hundred years after each era, including histories INTENDED to slander the mentioned parties.

>>589966

>g-g-guiz don't talk bad about Ian, muh /pol/

he's a faggot voiced cuck that votes for Democratic party nigger nazism and you then expect him to be pro gun

you're a brainlet faggot

>>590116

>Making fun /pol/ is defending Ian

I apologize people violated your safe space /pol/

>>590128

>If I say the exact opposite of what he says, no one will notice

>muh pollllllllll

we have id's here, retard.

>>590129

>>590116

>>590072

>/pol/ became so thin skin they start projecting from a post that not even defending Ian in the first place.

>>589966 < all this poster did was gave examples of /pol/ acting like the leftists they make fun of.

>>590086

People say nu-/pol/ happen with trump memes. I think it happen when /pol/ started giving welfare queen varg free gibs cause larping in woods will save the white race somehow.

>>590139

>hurr durr I'll railroad the thread with board infighting and act autistic when other people try desperately to stay on topic

>>590137

>>590114

I think this poster is retarded or an automated bot. They don't seem to be responding to anyone, just linking posts and posting rote text/media.

>>590137

Though I agree with the Varg part, the rest of your post reeks of /intl/.

>>590163

>>590172

It's called being a tremendous derailing faggot, and you're only helping him.

Shitters like this do it all the time, it's really easy to spot.

>thread takes a turn that makes someone uncomfortable or angry

>they look for any excuse to cry about one of the /pol/ boards

>without fail someone takes the b8 and the thread immediately suffocates under inter-board shitflinging

It's so obvious at this point I assume anyone who responds is legitimately retarded or complicit, or both.

>>590139

>>590114

It doesn't matter if you defended Ian or not, you're derailing the thread with M-M-MUH /POL/ and it's fucking retarded. Just stop posting and fuck off where you came from, either to /liberty/ or cuckchan.

>>589893

Problem is here that automation is capital. It increases marginal product of capital and shifts proportion of amount for capital and labor used in the favor of capital, these increases relative amount of revenue going to capitalist. When overall product indeed increases it is captured by capital owners not worker. That leads to increase of income inequality (what movies in the direction of extrema case right now). Economic growth goes over 90% of population. In the final end of automation capitalism don't have solution to this as people don't posses inherent capital from their birth and maturing, only labor.

>>590224

To add labor approach "right to work" is a Luddite failure of course.

>>590224

> it is captured by capital owners not worker.

Unless you subscribe to Marxist exploitation theory there isn't any reason to assume this. Increase in revenue of the producers translates both to reduced costs to the consumer, as well as increased employment as producers expand their production line.

>That leads to increase of income inequality

But there's nothing inherently bad about income inequality. Wealth of the very richest might have increased faster than that of the very poorest over the past century, but they both still increased; the poorest men in America today have a higher standard of living, and access to far more amenities, than Rockefeller did in his heyday.

>as people don't posses inherent capital from their birth and maturing, only labor.

Sure they do. As they grow and mature they accrue knowledge, skills, and experience, to which we may collectively refer as intellectual capital. People may use this capital to either demand higher quality work, or to start businesses of their own.

>>590227

>Unless you subscribe to Marxist exploitation theory there isn't any reason to assume this

Marxism has nothing to do with this it what mainstream economics tells us.

Pre automation.

Factory has one lathe that costs $1000K and 1 worker tha wroks that lathe. Worker gets paid $100K/year. Credit rate is 10%/year. So capital cost of that lathe per year is the same $100K/year. 50% of the revenue goes to the capital owner (banker) 50% to worker. Proportion of the capital can't be increased any more. Factory buys second lathe, but without additional worker it would stand still no expansion of production, there is no sense to buy second without worker.

After automation. Technology changed.

Factory has 10 CNC lathes that costs $1000K each and 1 worker. Technology allow 1 worker to work 10 of CNSs at once, and lets assume that qualfuaction required for this work is the same, school+trade school for example. Worker gets paid $100K/year (because demand for the labor is exactly the same 1 worker, there is no change of the equilibrium on labor market). Credit rate is 10%/year. Capitalist cost of 10 CNS lathes would be $1000K per year and the same $100K costs per worker so now 91% of teh factory revenues goes to the to the capital owner (banker) and only 9% to the worker. Instead of 50-50 before.

>why is the credit rate constant?

Fair point. Capital demand expanded and with the same capital supply equilibrium shifts and is fair to assume that capital costs (credit rate) increases. So proportion of the renew going to the capital owner would be even more at least in the short term.

I want the stormfaggots and wehraboos to leave.

>>589830

does anybody have that comment or tweet that has him admitting that he goes to that commie gun range?

>>590227

>But there's nothing inherently bad about income inequality

For the top 1-5-10% who gets the pie. 90% of teh rest? Why should they accept this? If were talking about Democracy it is logical for 90% to vote for taking the pie form the top 10% and in working Democracy they win vote and get the pie. If Democracy not working well they can take up pitchforks, hang the rich and change regime to working Democracy.

But lets say this authoritarian regime and top 10% control everything and have unbreakable monopoly of the violence. Well usual thing through the history but at least during history teh rest 90% were sheeps who are sheared by the rich, rich had some considerations about sheep well been, sheep need to be alive and more or less healthy to produce. So sheep get some small pie. In the situation when 90% don't produce anything? When the rest 10% have full authority over them? These 90% are just vermin for 10%, from the game theory and profit maximization for 10% it logical to eradicate these 90%. What is wrong about this?

Ultimately gross income inequality reflects situation when income owning population has violent authority over the rest of the population, otherwise rest just vote to take money from the rich.

>to which we may collectively refer as intellectual capital

It is form of labor. When i talk about capital it is material capital. Money, machines, robots, AI advisor calculators. Nobody is inherently born with such things and when such material capital becomes more efficient in every sphere than human capital, capitalist society runs unto big problem.

>>590230

You are invoking TRPF, a Marxist talking point, as it might pertain to automation. This will not come to pass for two reasons:

1. While the rate of profit does tend to fall for an arbitrarily selected industry as productive efficiency increases, it does not inherently reach zero since production costs still exist even at lowered levels, resource and allocational scarcity still exist, and net profits can still increase after rates of profit hit a floor via economics of scale. If rates of profit actually did reach zero with any notable frequency, many primitive goods and services still provided today for a price would either no longer exist or be effectively free, those industries which have been completely outmoded by new ones notwithstanding.

2. Marx's treatment of capital circulation as zero-sum is faulty, as it ignores the process of creative destruction. The agregate rate of profit for the entire economy is either stable or increasing over a period in which market forces are allowed to dominate, as new industries are continually opened. If you've ever read any French post-structuralists like Deleuze, you'd know that post-Marxists have had to formulate perpetual apologia for Marx in the face of this process in order to frame it as another contradiction or distortion of capitalism. Also, demand has no ceiling.

Also, you're assuming that the marginal utility of lathes/workers and CNCs are the same, which cannot be the case if the employer is preferrentially buying CNCs.

>>590237

>You are invoking TRPF, a Marxist talking point

But i am not.

>>589863

>/pol/tard

>skinhead

don't make me laugh

>>589966

>/pol/ does a thread

>it gets flooded with shills and /int/

>>590234

Your argument is that capital accumulating in the hands of the factory owner will cause diminishing returns due to the lower proportion of capital curculating among the employees, is it not?

>>590241

Main argument:

>Ultimately gross income inequality reflects situation when income owning population has violent authority over the rest of the population, otherwise rest just vote to take money from the rich.

>>590243

Yes, that's a core argument Marx makes.

>>590253

Marx makes argument that voting is useless and just for show and rich would never give up their positions so violnet Revolution is only way.

BTW Marxist Communism doesn't solve this problem either. Because according to Marx product should and eventually will go to those who produce it. If product is produced by robots it should go them and humanoid proletariat in post-automation society are just same parasites as capitalists in the capitalism pre-automation. But most commies are to dumb to come to this obvious conclusion.

>>590261

I'm not talking about Marx's praxis, I'm talking about his theories regarding an objective relationship between labor and the means and mode of production, which you are also applying.

>>590262

>not a real communism

Indeed. Other non Marxist "Communisms" have no solid theoretical framework to stand upon and essentially are welfare rich branches of the mainstream economics (welfare is a part of economics in case if you don't know). Though these "Communists" deny such (by mistake, malice or both).

>>590272

>>590283

Indeed, welfare is not only seen as a way of mollyfing the people, but also as a means to subsidize consumption and increase demand. There is more of this line of thought in corporatism-fascism, look at the food stamp program in the United States. Its part of the Agriculture Program and was sold on the fact that increasing cashflow into food consumption increased consumption, raised food and commodity prices, and therefore in theory helped the struggling economy of the US during the Great Depression.

There is deep irony in the fact that the same pinko leftists who defend it the most also list it in their hated 'corporate welfare" amount numbers, they both defend it directly and seemingly indirectly assault it.

There are some in business who like useless eaters because welfare makes sure they keep consuming and increasing sales and driving prices up, suring up markets. Housing bubbles are famous for this, parts of the US have tent cities and can't put their own people into housing but want to flood those places, like California, with illegal aliens to make shortages worse and prices higher. On one hand, industry, upper middle class, business, investment pay the taxes for the welfare state, but also enjoy the added spending in real consumption to their revenues. Many in the upper middle class love welfare, they are the direct beneficiaries of the programs, even if they are also the ones who pay for it.

Welfare is guaranteed cash, guarnateed demand, they make sure there is a solid base to the market, or as they say. Even if the rich pay the taxes, it is those who still work who produce the goods and services these useless eaters consume, so even those that pay low to no tax sometimes still do a great deal of sacrficie to provide for these do nothings. Also, every time you buy food or pay rent or mortgage, keep in mind the competition from these people raise the prices you pay and make your cash stretch less and less.

On one hand many speak of the stabilizing effect that welfare has on the economy, and how as automation increases and more and more people might not have jobs, they claim welfare and the new idea of Universal Basic Income, or Guaranteed Basic Income to keep the unemployed spending, and claim it is the solution to the "problem" of less work. On the other hand, we have lots to do even as people lose their higher paid jobs, and we'd be better off if they went to work doing something else, and not just doing "their party' by buying things they didn't trade for.

In the ideal capitalist future economy of high automation, the price of products and services will drop and stabilized to the point that low income strata people can afford them with little money. This flies in the face of the inflationairy economics we live under today, things MUST be made more expensive and people MUST borrow more money to push more cash into the mainstream economy. If we allow prices to drop and allow efficiency to continue, we could see people live a decent life off of low skilled 30-40 hour work.

Instead we have an economic clusterfuck of complicated policies based on strong central economic planning that pushes inflation and nonstop spending and high welfare, the result is a world economy that's saddled with debt (and thus needs more inflation to devalue that debt) mass consumer debt, debt for everyone and everything, and a point where you are supposed to borrow a nickel to buy a candy bar from the local store. People can't afford to pay the rent with a full time job? Of course! Housing prices must continue to skyrocket forever to keep the borrowing bubbles up, and to sure up the equity of old borrowers.

>>590283

>as all literate economists will tell you why it's a terrible idea.

But it is not. Diminishing marginal utility of income and wealth. For poor marginal utility of 1 additional dollar is much higher than for the rich. So if you take money from the rich and give to the poor overall utility (aka happiness) will raise. Checkmate, Trump!

Only thing is left to argue is where The Laffer Curve maximum and therefore is there space to rising taxes for the rich left. Mainstream economics is so beautifully elegant it denigrates all non Marxist Communist to the point of the tax curve.

>>590295

Shortages of goods and services to the average person is the result of lack of goods and services, not lack of money. If you double the cash that all consumers have tomorrow, consumption won't double, inflation will. Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor to spend won't raise utitility or happiness, it just means more cash spent on the same limited amounts of goods and services, and just more inflation.

The greatest fallacy of modern economics is the money fallacy, that everything is dependent on money. But money is just the same as everything else in this world, the more there is the less valuable it is, the less there is the more valuable it is. Nobody can tax their way to success, because taxes don't produce goods and services, taxes don't create incentive to create, instead they incentivize less. Welfare rewards idleness and progressive taxation punished work, to the point more people quit working, less production is seen, and we are all poorer as we strive for "equality". The welfare system need not be socialist in any way to undermine productivity and reduce wealth for all people.

Take a look at real wealth, a rich man owns one Rolls Royce, he doesn't own 1,000 used cars. His one car can't be chopped up into 1,000 cars and distributed to people. His filet mignon can't be cut up into 10 pounds of hamburger. His $20 cigar can't be cut up into 40 $0.50 cigars. The rich aren't over consuming things, so reducing their consumption won't help any shortages. Taxing the rich doesn't work because it doesn't actually solve anything.

>>590301

>There is a rather /k/ solution to the problem of automation, not a good solution, not a working solution, but a rather /k/ solution:

>A GIGANTIC ARMY!

We tried this in Burgerland, all it did was give us Lockheeb and turn the armed forces themselves into welfare. "Muh automation" is a nonissue and will solve itself, just like it did during the Industrial Revolution, and just like did in the wake of all the tech we got at the turn of the century. I'm bored of repeating myself so I'll just link this article instead:

https://mises.org/wire/robots-do-not-destroy-employment-politicians-do

>>590299

>Let us say a welfare state is put into place, say at ~$10k per year.

Fixed transfer is not only sort of welfare. It can be subsidized consumption. Food stamps? Free school? Oh, yeah.

>This tax…Occupied Rhodesia.

In short

>let me tell you about The Laffer Curve

>>590300

>Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor to spend won't raise utitility or happiness, it just means more cash spent on the same limited amounts of goods and services, and just more inflation.

Inflation happens if amount of money rises relative to the amount of goods. In case of income re-distribution money amount stays the same.

>Take a look at real wealth, a rich man owns one Rolls Royce, he doesn't own 1,000 used cars.

You dont tax porety you tax income. So his Rolls Royce stays with him. Well you can tax property but it is not Pareto optimality neutral so you should avoid that and tax income (if you can).

>>590303

>Fixed transfer is not only sort of welfare

Doesn't matter, because the above argument applies to any kind of redistributive system. Fixed transfer is simply the simplest and thus the easiest to model.

<let me tell you about The Laffer Curve

First, what I described is far more in-depth than the Laffer Curve. Second, you haven't actually refuted or explained the Laffer curve so this isn't an argument.

>if amount of money rises relative to the amount of goods

And that is what is happening because you are transferring the money to people who spend almost all of their income on consumables from people who don't spend nearly as great a percentage of their income on consumables. The poor and the companies that cater to them (rich folk don't shop at Wal-Mart) see a local increase in the amount of money present, therefore inflation occurs.

>>590303

>You dont tax porety you tax income. So his Rolls Royce stays with him. Well you can tax property but it is not Pareto optimality neutral so you should avoid that and tax income (if you can).

You missed the other guy's point completely; what he was saying was that the rich don't consume all that much more material than the poor so taxing them will do nothing to fix any kind of "shortage.

>>590306

>shortage

No such thing in the free market, in the long term. Shortage is USSR thing where goods suppler doesn't care about demand.

>>590305

>because the above argument applies to any kind of redistributive system.

No its not some welfare are more disruptive to the Pareto optimality than other, economic theory exists to choose better options. This is why food stamps not cash handouts.

> what I described is far more in-depth than the Laffer Curve

What you described is the situation on the right portion of the Laffer Curve. It also has left portion.

>as great a percentage of their income on consumables.

They spend income on investments and investment end on the consumer market too.

>>590233

anyone?

>>590341

It was a youtube comment if I recall, and it was established as fake–Ian's a faggot in many, many ways but that isn't one of them.

>>589830

>Antifa

yes he is. He's a liar.

https://imgur.com/a/84rNSI6

>>590343

You nigger, enough with the Listen and Believe™ bullshit. Ian is a lefty cuck and deserves to burn, but I've yet to see any reason to believe that that comment exists outside of that image.

>>590346

>imugr link

Go back to reddit you fucking idiot.

>>589813

>>589814

Archive or fuck off.

>>590310

>No such thing in the free market, in the long term. Shortage is USSR thing where goods suppler doesn't care about demand.

….But I'm not the one claiming shortage.

>This is why food stamps not cash handouts.

Food stamps cause the same problem just slightly slower. Any kind of redistribution causes the incentive shift.

>What you described is the situation on the right portion of the Laffer Curve. It also has left portion.

You would be more convincing if you elaborated on your arguments instead of throwing out single sentences without context.

Ian is a normie lolbertarian when it comes to politics that he openly expresses. He only comments on guns and very occasionally hacking. He is not a NatSoc, but he is definitely not a communist.

>>590354

Actually I think he's agreeing with you. Phoenix Chapter of the John Brown Gun Club is filled with Redneck Revolt types. IE: Antifa.

https://www.facebook.com/PhxJBGC/

look at these fags

>>590404

>Actually I think he's agreeing with you

Just so we're clear, what is it that you think I'm saying, what do you think he's saying, and where do you think we agree?

>>590407

I took a brief glance at that image and then googled it

I thought you were arguing over whether he's Antifa or not, but clearly there's more to it. I cant comment on the veracity of anything else (hell even that image if its doctored, as anything can be)

I just wanted to make a drive by comment complete with piss-poor reading comprehension but you had to go and ruin it

>>590411

>I just wanted to make a drive by comment complete with piss-poor reading comprehension but you had to go and ruin it

Leave that to your neighbors in the northwest, you'll never beat them at their own game.

I'm arguing exclusively over the veracity of the image. Ian is most certainly a cuck, and appears to lean left. He's probably not antifa though, because "Antifa are extremists, just like the alt-right ;^)." I've also yet to see any archive of that comment, or any screenshot besides that one.

Sorry for different id, Lukashenko banned my vpn (and 8ch is already banned)

>>590371

>You would be more convincing if you elaborated on your arguments instead of throwing out single sentences without context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

>The Laffer curve is typically represented as a graph that starts at 0% tax with zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue at an intermediate rate of taxation, and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate.

>This tax reduces the incentive to become wealthy, as you are receiving a smaller amount of compensation for the same amount of work, and not all who are in that bracket will be satisfied with that level of compensation. So, with less incentive to become wealthy, fewer people will strive to do so

What you describe is situation to the right after maximum when shrinking tax base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

> The "economic effect" assumes that the tax rate will affect the tax base itself.

This tax reduces the incentive to become wealthy, outpaces effect of increasing taxation. But curve also have left portion before maximum. Where increase of taxation outpaces reduction of economic activity.

>>591206

What should be emphasized that restriction were less for NSDAP members. It is clear illustration that guns are power and giving privilege of owning guns to your party memebers is empowering them and your position (this position was initially unclear for Hitler in Germany, civil war? maybe). Restricting guns for others is oppressing them. When government aims to take guns from all civilians and only leave them for the government mercenaries who have mandatory ZOG brainwashing training … you get the point.

>>591231

>But curve also have left portion before maximum. Where increase of taxation outpaces reduction of economic activity.

There are several problems with this. First, the Laffer curve deals in government revenue and not in real economic activity. Being in the "left" portion of the Laffer curve only means that increasing taxes will increase government revenue. Now, increasing government revenue has a nominal increase in GDP, but that's the key word–nominal. There are two problems with the way that Keynesians measure GDP well actually there are a lot of problems but two that are pertinent to what we're talking about right now. First, Keynesians inflate the impact of government spending through invoking the money multiplier effect. And as this article shows, the money multiplier is bullshit (https://mises.org/wire/keynesian-multiplier-illusion), and doesn't represent a genuine increase in wealth or productivity. Second, GDP is just a measure of final spending, not of economic health or economic productivity. It also assumes that all parts of GDP are equal–moving money out of C or I and into G doesn't change total GDP. This is a problem, because even though more gov't spending doesn't affect GPD, it absolutely affects health of the economy. Government spending is inherently bad for the economy, because the government is a compulsive monopoly–it doesn't respond to supply and demand, it can't go bankrupt, and it can just create money out of thin air. Because governments are fundamentally anti-market, any money that is taken out of the private sector and put into the government will only ever harm the economy. Even if you're on the "left side" of the Laffer curve, even if nominal GDP increases, you still have that incentive shift, and you still have damage to the economy.

Even if the top level income tax and the bottom level welfare is a net shift of 1%, you will STILL HAVE A NEGATIVE INCENTIVE SHIFT AND A DOWNWARD SPIRAL INTO NONPRODUCTIVITY. IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF HOW FAST IT HAPPENS.

>>591249

There is no alternative to the state, that's why what matters is making a good state with the right person in charge.

Democracy is a mistake and anarchism is just vulnerability.

A nation lacking a state is like a family lacking a father, your father raises you up and determines your shit, but he isn't bad for you.

>>591329

Also olden king and societies have no problems against his subjects having weapons, he even requires it because he needs his militia armed and ready.

>>591249

Suggesting that NatSocs want to disarm anyone that disagrees with them is pretty disingenuous, considering most nationalists wish to live in nationalist countries that non nationalists are free to leave (and arm themselves elsewhere). limiting gun rights to certain people only gets scummy when you have one of these toxic centrist states where all ideologies must share the same playpen at all times or conservaliberals will cry and "liberate" you with napalm. sometimes people cant share a room, arguing about whether or not those people want their roommate to have a gun in the room or not isn't relevant when you can just give them different rooms. Ideological imperialism is what's wrong, not ideological citizenship restrictions.

>>591353

See a doctor about that.

>>591359

>Canadian

you too

>>591372

He's right though.

>>591380

>The people that are too stupid to handle a gun are a self correcting problem.

Yeah, until they start going…

>Your carrying a firearm is a painful reminder of the helpless state I've willingly put myself in.

>I'm going to project my own lack of self control onto you and treat you like a psychotic killer.

>If I'm too irresponsible to have guns, then no one should have guns. We need to ban these killing tools so I can feel safe.

Just saying.

>>591383

The problem there is that those people have political influence. Without democracy and gibs all of their kvetching would be a nonissue.

This is what we need, the re-establishment of the germanic militia laws:

- every household gotta have at least a rifle, full-auto, and a pistol, like every household, if you gotta more males, you gotta have more

- weapons would be subsidized, especially ammo

- gun safety course in primary school, enforced by state

I don't give a damn about this liberty/democracy horseshit, I want duty. You are a citizen, then you are a potential militia member and must be trained and equipped and such.

Have a problem, talk with your guns.

Ian is a fucking faggot and I'm done giving him a dollar on patreon.

>>592432

Nobody gives a shit, this isn't your blog

>>592432

damn I hope he goes to the shop one day and it turns out he is a dollar short and at that time he will reflect on what he's done and remember this one anon that stopped giving him a dollar on patreon

>>592432

That's a called a buckamonth.

>>592270

>dweebagoon necros a thread that died 4 days ago

i wouldn't expect anything less ;^)

>>592270

>/POL/

>>591249

Rights don't exist. Only privileges. Entire notion that rights needs protection illustrates that this is not inherent thing but granted by the power holder. So it is privilege.

Rights are outdated propaganda concept of the age of piss contests between Monarchs and rebels.

>>592270

>muh pol

>>>/liberty/

sage negated btw

>>592564

I don't know what's worse: when the entire idea hinges on how Yahweh gives them to every people upon birth; or the secular one that assumes people have them just because.

>>592564

Rights are as much about mindset and explaining behavior as they are about whether they're "real" or not, you damn frog. You're correct, if I grind down the universe to the finest powdesr and run it through the finest sieve, I wouldn't find any property atoms or liberty particles. Checkmate atheists XD.

That kind of literalist interpretation of an abstract concept, however, is retarded. It's reddit-tier intellectual virtue-signalling to show all the other Rational™ people on the internet how smart you are. Yes, obviously with enough overwhelming force one man can crush another. But that's not the point of rights being intrinsic; the point is that what we call "rights" are valued universally by everyone. Everyone wants to keep their own autonomy and their own property, even if they're okay with taking them away from others. And as such, people will try to defend their rights when possible; this aspect of of them allows us to use the concept of rights to explain human action, and by extension economics. And there's also the simple pragmatic aspect: without exception, societies in which property rights are valued, and are infringed upon less, are happier, more productive, more socially cohesive, and more homogeneous. But I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from the country that gave us Robbespierre.

>>591406

I like the cut of this gook's jib.

>>592719

sage negated

>>591406

This

>>591406

>gun safety course in primary school, enforced by state

There should be Defense Classes where students learn how to act in extreme situations, like a fire, shooting, terrorist strike, practice the basics of CQC First Aid and go to the shooting range as well.

>tfw in high school my teacher was a former navy Colonel whose advice on how to deal with panic (scenario was theater fire) is to knock out the biggest bitch in the room with a straight punch to establish yourself as being in control of the situation and stop panic from spreading, thus saving lives at the cost of a broken nose.

>other advice for a building on fire scenario was to deceive everyone by saying it's an advanced drill that was planned in advance.

>>592961

>tfw in high school my teacher was a former navy Colonel whose advice on how to deal with panic (scenario was theater fire) is to knock out the biggest bitch in the room with a straight punch to establish yourself as being in control of the situation and stop panic from spreading, thus saving lives at the cost of a broken nose.

>other advice for a building on fire scenario was to deceive everyone by saying it's an advanced drill that was planned in advance.

Hahahahahaha fuck me, that's glorious. I'd wish to see that in action.

>>589966

>/pol/ and /k/ aren't friends

>both boards are 100% populated by oathcucks, civnats, pro-israel boomer qtards and antifa

oh, this post again

>>593986

what a fucking weirdo

>gay ass nasaly voice

>ponytail

>Larp goatee

>hipster view of guns and 2nd A

>political cuckold

>50 year cougar toy

>>593986

Forgotten Cuckolds.

>>593986

>m-muh 1% Scottish blood makes me a pureblooded Scot!

>when you have no national culture of your own

>>594047

This is your brain on "civic nationalism".

>>593986

What would you estimate their ages to be? I'm terrible at guessing age.

>>593998

>>594001

this so much

I hate when Americans try to pull this larp shit.

Yeah, we're white, we're descended from European countries, but the culture is way distant. It's one thing to for example have a German first and last name and therefore by extension to be attracted to German things like philosophy, the language, or weaponry, but to unironically dress up in a kilt or seig heil makes me want to vomit myself to death.

>>594055

it's a problem when he denies a genocide of his people because of his political beliefs.

>>594059

and then take down and reupload a video mute the comments because they trigger him.

>>594055

>"fragility"

>"extremist"

>>>/leftypol/

but it really isn't just his shit-tier and contradictory politics, contradictory because the same people he votes for (Dems) seek the outlaw the very guns he enjoys. No, Ian is simply an annoying person, irrespective of politics. He and Karl are pretty much a living definition of Reddit style pretension. The self-serving "scientific" pose of their videos, which is just an extension of their pretension and is in no way a thing in itself, his nauseatingly nasal "american" accent, that ridiculous ponytail and larp goatee, his weirdo high-school kid postures, his weirdo super larp clothing where he wears his fucking pants up to his belly button. I want to bully him just by looking at him.

>>593986

I honestly feel bad for that poor woman. She's standing there trying to look like a woman, look normal, look pretty, not make a joke of herself, and here's this weirdo douchebag larping to prove a point about history. Drop your self-absorbed bullshit and take a fucking picture.

>>594059

>>594060

>watch video

>don't read comments

Problem solved, no more triggering for you faggot. I don't agree with Ian's views on SA's genocide either but that doesn't stop me from watching content that entertains me.

>>594061

>You disagree with me? You must be /leftypol/!

<You disagree with me? You must be /pol/!

Grow up.

Also funny how all the criticism about Ian being annoying and bad came after he said something political. It's almost like people realize saying that he offends you politically isn't an actual argument as to why you don't watch him.

>>594064

>omg politics omg

yeah apparently you haven't been here very long. Lurk more, you fucking faggot.

>UR BEEN WATCHING IAN FOR 100 YEARS AND THEN BAM, GROW UP LOL

Speaking for myself, I'm one of the few that criticized this mewling little shitstain from the very beginning, from day one. I knew he was a sniveling little cunt then, and he certainly didn't disappoint when it was made perfectly clear.

Now the only ones left on his side are the dicksucking larper's that take his reddit condescension and turn it to 11 to try and out do their internet superhero.

Want to see an actually "scientific" gun e-celeb. Watch based Jew Paul Harrell. There's no bullshit with him, he just goes out, shoots stuff roughly approximating his subject matter, makes a conclusion, and moves on. That's what "science" is about, not being a larping hipster douchebag and thinking you're "scientific" because you literally shoveled mud into the chamber of an ak-47 and now it amazingly doesn't fucking work, and therefore "muh stoner."

>inb4 muh ak-47 shill hue hue hue this will save me ur an ak-47 shill

I only own AR's, and sold the only ak I did have (a vepr).

>>594061

I'm going to get off the train here. Whatever you hate the man for, his presentation is excellent, that's why he's so popular. Most gun channels are rancid dogshit of terrible presentation, either trying to give an "off the cuff" that's supposed to feel real and spontaneous but is painfully rehearsed and fake, people forcing themselves to laugh like every faggot Youtube channel that's successful, heavy garbage metal overdubs, trying to be "fun" instead of informative, and most of all SHILL SHILL SHILL.

Ian's videos are simple, to the point, aren't overproduced, aren't full of endless mind numbing 'entertaining" bullshit, the videos themselves tend to stick to history and not take sides and go off the point, they are informative and worth watching, especially rare guns you never see anywhere else. The 'self serving scientific pose" isn't self serving, its PROPERLY DOING A VIDEO YOU RETARD. Even if you hate Ian, his presentation is an example to others on how to do proper videos, its one of the best channels compared to the rest.

No, sir, I disagree, take the politics out and Ian is a damned good Youtube presenter. We need more of his type and less FPSRussia cancer and worthless channels were people go on generic "rants", have gay and retarded "TOP 5 LISTS", give their worthless "opinions" in videos, create drama, cause fights and antagonize the "shooting community", and every other cheap shit covered tool and hack in the arsenal to make another generic garbage grade worthless channel. Throw Ian under the bus, fine, but don't throw his work away when it is defendable.

>>594062

shat myself laughiung

>>594064

>Also funny how all the criticism about Ian being annoying and bad came after he said something political.

Nah, the "muh ponytail whiney voice" guy always posted these threads, long before Ian did anything really political.

>>594206

Indeed, but I'm not the one who posted the thread

Believe it or not, there's people out there who dont like this pretentious faggot.

>>594111

>his presentation is excellent, that's why he's so popular.

Wrong. The reason he and Karl have subscribers is because of their access to guns. Viewers come and stay for the gun porn, not because of those faggots.

>The 'self serving scientific pose" isn't self serving, its PROPERLY DOING A VIDEO YOU RETARD

Glad that triggered you, because you know it's true.

Ian's smarmy, mewling, ponytail'd nasaly gay ass has an agenda just like all those other guys you despise. He's out to prove that guns are tools and to drain them of their mystique and manliness, which is to say drain them of their gun-ness, not primarily for the sake of scientific observation. The "science" is just an affectation of his grudge. In that respect he's like a sissified version of James Yeager.

There are actually scientific youtubers out there, Paul Harrell being the best and most impartial of them. Science is doing a test on material that is generally unknowable from purely from theoretical analysis, performing that test, seeing how it complies with your expectations, adjusting, and moving on. Of course, if it is clearly fucking obvious what's going to happen, like shoveling mud directly into the chamber of an AK, then all you're doing is being a whiny iconoclastic faggot shilling MUH AR MUH STONER. It just shows that you were already predisposed to a pet gun and faked science by doing obviously cherry-picked "testing" as a post-facto rationalization. They do that shit all the time and pleb brainlet dumbshits like you lap it up.

>Throw Ian under the bus, fine, but don't throw his work away when it is defendable.

What work? You mean finding guns and talking about their components? Anyone can do that if they had the access, or the time and money, which brings into question how exactly those two faggots are able to enjoy such a lifestyle. Patreon welfare from piggies like you?

>>594234

another example: their "mud test" of a DSA FAL and a Century Arms C308.

Based solely on that test, you'd think the C308 was a great gun by the way Karl and fag Ian shilled it in the video. I bought a C308 just to verify their fag shilling, and I can say definitely that the c308 is a dogshit gun. Horrible accuracy, constant failure to feed, generally wore out looking internally, a classic shit-tier kit gun from classically shit-tier Century Arms.

So what did fag Ian and Karl do? They took the benefits of the blow-back system and projected it onto the entire weapon, and came away saying that "this $400 dollar Century Arms is better than that DSA, you're just paying for name brand, look at what this mud did." That's not science, it's shilling, so why did they do it? To be pissy and iconoclastic towards the comments section, because people were rightly saying that the DSA was a better gun and justified it's higher expense compared to a fucking Century Arms. Why is it better? It's more accurate, it doesn't fail to feed every other round, it isn't prone to slam-fire, it isn't completely worn out, it's a new weapon made from original FAL tooling. But all that went out the window for them and their assrage. That triggered Reddit, and the two faggots set about rationalizing their hipster pretension with another deliberately misleading video posting as "science." In their minds, they shoveled mud into the chamber, therefore they're right.

>>594234

I've never given a penny in Patreon money to anyone, I'm not even subscribed to his channel. I've seen his work occasionally as it pops up in my suggested videos section and some of his topics have been worth the watch. In fact about the only things I see are his auction gun presentations for the most part, never seen any of his comparison videos, only a few of him firing.

Yes, they have access to the weapons, but what else is new in this world. Sometimes people have access to things others don't, that' doesn't detract from their work. Other people have access to weapons or potential access and don't make any videos at all, other people make garbage grade videos when they do. Forgotten Weapons is a decent series that does a great job of showcasing rare things that many would not even have access to in the first place, introduces less serious people to older designs and rare things in a very easy to follow layout.

Maybe its because I don't see most of his other videos, maybe its because I have a strong positive impression because of the one series he has made. Maybe I have to see his other work to understand the hate, maybe its because I don't follow the guy and pay active attention to everything he does.

FW series is very formal, polite, respectful, and the best he can do with auction guns that often can't be fired and he does a good job of presenting them. That's all I have to say, and I'll stick by that. As I said, many people DO have access to those weapons, they make zero vidoes, or they make videos that are zero. Other people do a shit job of tearing them apart, explaining components, camera work, and general presentation, too much nonsense often times. The fact that they did it and did it well is accomplishment in itself, despite the rest.

I don't have a political alignment, nor do i follow any political groups. Furthermore, i don't care about Ian's policital alignment. I just watch Forgotten Weapons for the cool and obsucre guns.

I swear, i can't go anywhere on the internet or anywhere in real life without people arguing over politics and such. It's annoying.

>>589775

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZ2NShfCE8&list=PL103LxaPkBeTO3O9OhuEYAy0s-_Dw4YLe&index=104

>>589776

>Can't even hold up a metal airshit AK

>Shaky hands

>soyboy beard, balding

>obese

>holds airshit to look tough

…

>>589838

Socialism is socialism. It doesn't matter if it is national socialism(nazism) or international socialism(communism), socialism historically leads to starvation and genocide. Germany, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Vietnam, all subscribed to a type of socialism. Germans and Ruskies killed each other but both were socialist nations.

>>594059

"scots" are not boers

56%ers are not boers

>>595388

>What do boomers actually mean when they say this?

Collectivist is anyone who has principles and goals that are above "I must feel good"

You want your city to not be a shithole even though you live safely behind fortified doors and bulletproof windows?

Fucking collectivist.

Worst thing possible is if you are organized with likeminded people into a cohesive group.

>>595388

The one who identifies himself with other people and therefore considers influencing them a goal in itself. A fag or commie who does nothing but gets into peoples' lives as a way to stoke his ego is a collectivist, as well as nazi who creates a conspiracy and a faulty distinction adding qualities to things that do not differ from others. It's a lot easier to justify parasitism, censorship and witch hunting when you present a thing a thing as a valuable goal in itself, as it helps not admitting one's own desires. It's actually easy to google if you are interested and not mocking the subject.

>>595388

Someone who identifies with a larger group (whites, Muslims, gays, etc.) and cares about their welfare, while realizing that politics is a zero-sum game.

>>595308

>commies and national socialists are the same

fuck off retarded jewpig

>>595433

>Sounds like Anarchy

How so? Anarchy is lack of rulers, what has it to do with collectivism? If anything totalitarianism is collectivist to the extreme.

>even though its a purely selfish concept in itself

Again, how so? Those who argue for anarchy are the ones who support and advocate for freedom more than anyone else. Unless feeling good by helping others is selfish, i think it's not. Though "greedy", "selfish" or any other such word is really arbitrary and only describes ones disagreement with anothers actions and trying to change that by shaming, being incapable to attack that person directly.

>>595453

>If you live your life making decisions based on your wants and desires, could that in itself be considered selfish? What about the desire to help other people?

Technically, a;; the decisions are made within the individual, governed by his personal motivation, so any act can be considered selfish in a sense. This term exists only because of people striving to deprive individuals from themselves, but it does not make it any less faulty. Here's more read about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism .

>>595453

Again, this term is completely arbitrary and can reliably used only in moral arguments against things one doesn't like, as anything can be considered selfish all you have to do is cherry pick the things you're arguing against.

Anarchy is the worst of all systems. its also destined to turn into something else immediately because everyone loves order the second that order is lost. People want order, need it, it is best for everyone.

Everyone in a society that has order and is rich, peaceful, well to do thinks anarchy is an opportunity to do whatever they want, rape people, rob people, burn people, kill people. The second they realize that EVERYONE ELSE can rape THEM, rob THEM, burn THEM and THEIR SHIT, and kill THEM, they realize how retarded and shitty this whole anarchy business was, and everyone goes right back to some sort of law, hierarchy, power, and order.

Anarchy will never sustain, nor should it, nor could it. Its simply becomes a transition from one system of power to another, one order to another. There is no such thing as a vacuum that stays open for very long.

>>595606

>People want order, need it, it is best for everyone.

I disagree. There are very few people who enjoy bootlicking, and even they are generally very specific in its applications, whether its BDSM play or something else. Only fascists openly declare their position, which is why they are widely treated as enormous fags, with the idea of training others to be the same way being another one.

Also, anarchy means absence of rulers, not rules, so it is not opposed to order per se, only servitude to your own ass which you present as one. You want to decide for others, and "everyone" or whatever dehumanizing generalization you pick have nothing to do with it.

>Everyone in a society that has order and is rich, peaceful

Because wealth is created only through ideological indoctrination.

>The second they realize that EVERYONE ELSE can rape THEM, rob THEM, burn THEM and THEIR SHIT, and kill THEM

It's not like these things are going anywhere in a different regime. All of it to be done legally by an authority you praise it an even more likely outcome.

>some sort of law, hierarchy, power

Law? Hierarchy? Nothing requires authority and is generally done by people themselves. Power? For you, of course, right? Doesn't seem to do anything with the above.

>Anarchy will never sustain, nor should it, nor could it.

Because the only thing stopping people from killing each other is someone who's stronger but for some reason doesn't, right?

>Its simply becomes a transition from one system of power to another, one order to another.

Do you realize that today's states interact in anarchy, as there are no rulers above them, right? It's not about people only, you know.

>>595453

>This is not to say there are no rules

If there are no rulers, how can there be rules? The two words are derivative for a reason mate…

>>595623

Mutual agreements count as rules, For example, a board has its rules you've got to accept, but because you can leave and not participate or even create you own it's totally fine.

>>595632

>Mutual agreements count as rules

>The floor is counts as fire

Mutual agreements count as mutual agreements, they can be abrogated at any time and for any reason, with no real consequence.

>For example, a board has its rules you've got to accept, but because you can leave and not participate or even create you own it's totally fine.

But that's true even for real countries. If you don't like it make your own, or fuck off to antarctica.

>>595634

> they can be abrogated at any time and for any reason

You get BTFOd or banned for breaking them, they are not pointless promises, they ARE rules. If you break forum rules, you get banned. If you do something wrong in a club, you get kicked out.

>But that's true even for real countries. If you don't like it make your own, or fuck off to antarctica.

Not really. It's my country, i was born here and a partial owner of it, as well as all other people in it. Citizens are not renters and not slaves to a government, it's the government that oght to serve people, despite it often acting otherwize.

>>595643

Who btfos or bans me if there are no rulers?

>"if i get born near a group of people that means they should bend over backwards to serve me"

Weeeew lad.

>>595648

>Who btfos or bans me if there are no rulers?

The one whose rules you accepted. He's not a ruler per se, he's just upholding your agreement rules.

>"if i get born near a group of people that means they should bend over backwards to serve me"

Where did i say anything about servitude? It's more like "if i get born near a group of people that does not mean that they can force me to do what they want." Hold your strawmen, lad.

>>595651

>The one whose rules you accepted. He's not a ruler per se, he's just upholding your agreement rules.

<hurr durr he's not a ruler, it's still anarchy, but there's a powerful authority upholding agreements

Or does the authority have no power, therefore is incapable of upholding the rules?

Why are TORpedos so fucking braindead

>>595651

>The one whose rules you accepted. He's not a ruler per se, he's just upholding your agreement rules.

You know that's what rulers have always done, right? I mean, that's the traditional role of a king right there.

>>595651

Hold on, if I've accepted his rule, how is he not a ruler then?

Anarchists are so fucking confusing.

>>595717

>>595719

>>595723

The difference is that you can say 'no.' In which case you are blacklisted by the insurance company (or whoever), and the clients of the same bar you from accessing their private property—in other words, it's a form of banishment. As a result there's no coercion or force, but a completely voluntary way of enforcing the rules.

>>595725

>we don't rule you, we'll just exile you from society if you say no to us

I mean, how is that any different from the countless people throughout history who've been exiled for any number of reasons?

>>595725

>no coercion or force

Yeah but how do you expect to get me to leave if there's no force? Asking real nice isn't going to work.

>>595732

By being really passive aggressive, condescending and using an irritating tone of voice that'll make you want to leave.

>>595774

>Physically removing someone from your property for trespassing isn't aggression, it's self-defense.

EMPTY JUSTIFICATION #20202703740658

Every single act of aggression was justified with similar methods.

When a cop breaks your face in for having pot and takes you to prison it's not aggression. He's doing it because your weed 420 blaze it is funding crime and terrorism and thus an aggression against the organization he's protecting - in your case the United States of America. He's just defending society bro, it's not aggression.

Hell, when a nigger rapes your ass in jail, it's not aggression because you're a part of the group who enslaved him mufugga, you're A. Wyatt Manne and that makes you the initial aggressor. Just ask the nigger. He'll explain how his dick in your ass is really just self defense.

/liberty/ crossposter here, why are all ancraps burgers?

>>595774

> Physically removing someone from your property for trespassing isn't aggression, it's self-defense.

Can I mortar my neighbor's house for waking me up on the weekend with his loud lawnmower?

soundwaves he made trespassed onto my property and ruined my nap, thus violating the NAP

>>595852

America was a lolberg country but it ended up being jewish golem because certain groups can see the long term benefits of sacrificing freedoms for group goals,

>>595876

>reddit

>fallacyposting

>rick and morty

You reek of desperation.

>>595919

the

>chans

was a bigger giveway

>>594092

>based Jew

filtered. Stopped reading there.

>>595308

>It doesn't matter if it is national socialism(nazism) or international socialism(communism), socialism historically leads to starvation and genocide

Glad to see you found /k/, dad. What next? Going to lecture us on why the M14 is the best rifle ever designed?

>>595388

Boomers are confused and propagandized to the point that they don't really know anything. Whatever they try to mean doesn't matter, because it isn't accurate to anything in the real world. Their worldview is that of the horseshoe theory, where NATO governments are centrist, and everything else is extremist. Using a flawed series of observations, they look at things socialist and nationalist governments share in common in order to come to the conclusion that both systems are somehow the same. They also ignore the fact that many, if not all of the same mechanisms exist in the "moderate" governments they have been propagandized to uphold.

>>595606

The real problem with anarchy is that there are 2 kinds of people politically speaking: the politically servile and the politically willful. Every government that has ever existed was created and upheld by the willful, while the servile simply upheld the system passively. You know how it's said that only 3% of the American colonists actually fought the British? That is the politically willful. They usually only take up 5% or so of the general population. In order to have a system of anarchy, you must either have a population that is 100% politically willful and desirous of anarchy, which is impossible, as all women are politically servile, or a population that is 100% politically servile, in which will swiftly be taken over by a faction of politically willful foreigners, often without a shot fired. This is why anarchy can never exist, and is as pointless as any other utopian system.

>>595618

>There are very few people who enjoy bootlicking

It doesn't matter if most people want to lick boots, it is that they will with only the slightest implication of force.

>>595876

>>595999

Christ, are you this autist >>586211

>>595308

Can you fucking not?

>>595852

because all the money is there and libertarianism is secretly about money, which is why the figureheads switch sides or 'have accidents' once they deregulate

>>595919

If you say so; I've responded to your posts just as thoroughly and honestly as you have to mine. For someone who claims to bash Rothbard for flowery language you use an awful lot of sophistry yourself.

>>595920

Oh, pardon me, I should have said 'imageboards.' Are you going to revoke my Kool Kids Klub card?

>>595929

>le violence is golden meme

The problem one so consistently sees in Hobbesians is that, even of those few who understand and acknowledge market realities, they immediately insist on throwing all of it out the window for a couple specific transactions, and adopting something completely contrary to the rest of human behavior that applies only to these few instances. The effort to out-edge everyone else is a hell of a drug.

>>596051

Look at him trying to backpedal! He started out with kindergarten tier insults and is trying to wheel it back and pretend like he's the civilized one!

>>596080

Actually you pasted the low effort shitpost, which was a page out of Murray Rothbards book. I put in the high effort work of showing how empty and unsupported his "theses" are.

You then responded to my high effort post by calling me a redditor and a watcher of "rick and morty".

I know what you are by the way, it's very easy to see it from how you speak to people, very amusing.

>>596095

>high effort work

Let's recap, shall we?

>1. quibbling over semantics

>2. exaggeration, and irrelevant to driving argument

>3. more semantics

>4. baseless declaration, essentially "I don't like this so it don't real"

>5. quibbling over word choice

>6. quibbling over word choice

>7. quibbling over word choice

>8. quibbling over definitions before you go around claiming that this is another "new" thesis, consider that this is excerpt is less than a page long out of a book with over 300 others. Seeing as this very passage says within it that it's an example used to illustrate a point previously made, I'm sure you can put the context clues together and realize all this was described elsewhere in the text with more formality.

>9. LOL REKT XDDDD

>10. Justice don't real because I say so (am I being edgy enough yet? Notice me senpai Hobbes)

>11. Mangled, disingenuous conflation of the LVT and Lockean homesteading theory

>12. ignorance of context and deliberately obtuse understanding of words Surely even you must realize that Rothbard's entire point in this passage is that because the original method of acquisition isn't legitimate, any subsequent transaction wouldn't be legitimate either.

Despite your 50000 hours in MS Paint, only the 10th of the 12 "arguments" you made is salient–and even then it's barely and argument at all, just a blanket rejection of Rothbard's concept of justice as "arbitrary" without elaboration of what problems you have with it, or indeed any indication that you understand his claim at all. But I'm sure you don't need to trouble yourself with petty details like that. After all, your powers of critique that you can read one page of a book, argue against one line of it, and extrapolate that brilliant analysis not only to the rest of the book but to the entire author as well. Obviously, you're just far too intelligent to trouble yourself with minutiae like that.

dead thread

>>596958

on a dead board

In other news, in the new R4/5/6 video, he makes no mention of the RK-62 and credits every design upgrade of the Galil to the kikes. He compares the Galil to the AKM several times. I hate him more every day.

Ian is a cuckold.

>>601285

>necrobumping the cuck thread

kys