/liberty/ - Liberty

>>101029

I'm so sorry, who is forcing you to buy video games?

>>101008

I don't see the problem either, sorry. For the customers, it isn't optimal, yes, but the customer doesn't matter more than anyone else. As a customer, I want games to be free and distributed on whatever platform I like, and I don't care about how much that will cost anyone else. Customers, like every other actor on the market, are selfish, insofar as they are customers. Therefore, as customers, they don't have any moral highground. That something is not optimal for the customer is no argument that it is wrong. The game developer and the publisher both seem to profit from their exclusive deals, and why shouldn't they? They put the work in. The game developer spent hundreds or thousands of hours creating the game, and the publisher has to maintain servers, quality control, and all the like. Both would like assured profits for their trouble, and who am I to say they shouldn't have them? My own whims are no more legitimate than their whims.

>>101008

it does not break the nap

>>101013

Sony did the same to Square-Enix (look how long it took for an FF7 pc port) and Sega for their own console, yet there were still competitors to both.

>>101008

Paying a game developer to make a game exclusively for your platform isn't bribery, it's smart business. Microsoft and Sony pay game devs to make console exclusives all the time.

Bribery would be more fitting if a corporation makes a heavy donation to some politician's foundation and in return the politician make policy that favors said company exclusively.

>>98444

yeah

Auchwitch was a jewish death camp where jews raped and murdered palestinians.

>>100980

go home you are drunk

>>94654

>if I want

That. It can be both civnat and ethnat.

>>94651

I think anyone who says "never been tried" should probably be shot. It's a tired, tired phrase and clearly it's lived long enough to be entirely misapplied.

>>94534

I think you aren't aware of the labour value of theory

>>95315

>>94534

>>94519

we did it, reddit

Bump, because the left cannot shut up about Dickstabbed.

Most of those were accomplished by the west when it invented industrialism, of course when USSR copied industrialism without having to discover anything by trial and error or go through any growing pains it would happen a bit faster. Also they received food aid from the west for their entire existence, China receives various investments and even dollar for dollar aid to this day, despite being the 2nd largest economy. Imagine if America received money from the UN, it's that ridiculous.

>wage gap

Although I'll admit capitalism never solved imaginary problems.

>>100941

Oh, and concerning education, communist countries tend to have notoriously high literacy rates and education levels, which is simply because they shove everyone into mandatory schooling.

>But if everyone was in a Gulag, how could everyone get schooled? Checkmate, my aynclap friend!

Everyone was schooled even in Gulags. Every single source about communist countries that I ever consulted talked about the indoctrination and reeducation rampant in these countries, especially in prison. So, is it any wonder literacy rates went sky high? More importantly, is that in any way reflective of an increased standard of living, or should we maybe discard literacy rate as an a-grade indicator of living standards if they can be increased by building schools in Kolyma and then deporting everyone and his mom to Kolyma?

>>100958

same in communist poland

>>100939

But it also explains why leftists are so obsessed with income inequality. If you come from the point of view of already existing in a society with a government, then buy the critiques against capitalism which make a lot of sense in that system, then an alternative approach to cracking down on rent-seeking is instead to eliminate the differential financial advantage that certain individuals have in rent-seeking, which on an institutional level would involve combating income inequality. I'm not saying whether that's a good approach, but just how it's seemingly consistent from that worldview.

>>100945

>if you come at the problem from the wrong direction, you only produce shitty solutions

Well, yes.

>>99071

>Don't firms and individuals in a capitalist society have large incentives to rent-seek, in other words, isn't it the case that cronyism an endemic feature of capitalism?

In fact, no. It's not firms per se that rent-seek, it's interest groups. These groups will exist even in a perfectly socialistic system.

Some of the worst examples of rent-seeking you can find in Nazi Germany. I recommend The Vampire Economy if you want to learn about this in depth, or at least a few chapters from it, as the book is quite boring. Corporations were very heavily regulated, they could not import or export without permission, they had to fulfill quotas, managers and entrepreneurs lived in constant fear of being persecuted for accidentally breaking some law, they had members of staff whose sole purpose was to have cocktail parties with bureaucrats… interestingly, no capitalist really liked this state of affairs. Many wanted it at first, especially the banks, but they deeply regretted it a few years later.

>>99128

For the love of God, just learn this already.

The reason we mock communists who say "not real communism" is because they a) have no standards for determining whether some state is communist or not, as aa) their standards, like "worker's ownership of the means of production" are nearly inoperable, and bb) they cannot even find any consensus on which standard they should adopt, and b) they regularly change their minds on which governments are and aren't socialistic. My favorite example is Venezuela. You had leftists praise this country for its policies, but they made a 180° turn once the first reports came of starving Venezuelans eating flamingoes, and then they pretended that this turn never happened once Venezuela reached a state of civil war. We were always at war with Eurasia, you know? Also, c) communist don't like to think of a spectrum running from capitalism to communism, a system is either communistic or it's capitalistic.

Meanwhile:

a) Every capitalist will agree that the more unregulated voluntary transactions and property dispositions are, the more capitalist a country is,

b) there is broad agreement over which countries are capitalistic and which aren't, with some disagreements on facts, but you at least don't have thirty sects of capitalists who disagree with each other and don't even acknowledge their differences,

c) we think of economic freedom as running on a spectrum, with the USSR on one end and Ancapistan on the other so that when we say "Chile wasn't REAL capitalism", we mean to say it wasn't the ideal type of a capitalist economy. We then usually go on to mention the features which weren't capitalistic and tell you why the economic calamities in question are the fault of the interventionist or socialist elements of the economy, not of the capitalist ones.

Quick rundown?

Does it still exist?

1984

Time Will Run Back (although this one is admittedly kind of childish)

>>100799

janusz korwin-mikke

>>100786

Anything by Robert Conquest or Solzhenitsyin, Rudolph Rummel, any literature on the Khmer Rouge, Yang Jishengs Tombstone, the political treatises of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Pictures of the Socialistic Commonwealth, and Matthew Whites Atrocitology. Those come to my mind right now.

>>100811

Never thought I'd saw razorfist get mentioned here but his video was pretty good.

>>98231

>>98251

>>98252

>>98286

>>98383

/liberty/ needs to make a board tan quik.

Also, waifu in the OP is from a /leftypol/ artist as far as I know.

>>80623

>not selling them to minarchists and ancaps alike

>giving them away for free on a message board

tsk tsk tsk

Fuck Lincoln. Someone should have shot him sooner.

>>100858

Hitler actually loosened gun control laws. Except he took them from Jews

<King George III wanted to take peoples guns

<Martin Luther King JR. was BASTE

<Abraham Lincoln didn't shred the constitution when he broke habeas corpus among other things.

cringe.

>>100882

<King George III wanted to take peoples guns

it's true, though

>>100881

I honestly wouldn't put too much stock in Donald Trump but this could be interesting if it actually evolves into something (Which it really seems like it won't as unfortunate as that may be).

Why are most economists thrown off by the idea of reviving the gold standard?

>>100901

Probably because it would embarass most of them if it worked, as the "wisdom" of a good deal of their teachers was that the gold standard was terribad, but also because from their perspective, it seems extremely wasteful. Warren Buffets old comment that aliens would think us crazy for digging out gold and burying it in a fortified compound, never to let anyone touch it, is a very convincing one if you do not understand monetary theory. Which, surprise surprise, the economists don't.

Also, don't forget that the state is practically addicted to inflationism. If you are an economist who is completely against it, you probably won't make it in any ministry, and that also means having less prestige as a professor.

Let's see if anything comes out of it first.

>>100881

I like the Trump presidency so far. He unironcically seems to be the only person in American politics who realizes actual threats to America like Chinas domination of the markets, or the fact that south american shitholes are taking advantage of America by manipulating soft hearted and dull witted liberals (reminder that the migrant caravans are all supported by the Honduran government) And all the major foreign policy concerns that people had about him were bullshit anyway. Mueller Report confirms that the Russian collusion conspiracy theory was just a retarded conspiracy theory the entire time, and his talk about other countries not paying into NATO which critics all said was him trying to destroy NATO just ended up making them pay into more, which made it even stronger.

I've yet to see any actual complete criticism of him that wasnt complete dogshit conspiracy trash.

>>97258

considering you have nothing to back up your premise in the first place, Im going to say no

>>100870

Lack of evidence presented does not prove or even suggest that a premise is false.

>>100853

ashkenazi are majority among jews

All jews are left-wing leaning parasites

>>100905

>Empirical Evidence

Sorry, not even going to bother watching, because the only empirical evidence I need is seeing everything that socialists, communists, and miscellaneous leftists touch turn to shit.

>>100911

Oh, so NOW you care about theory.

>>100920

You know what, go ahead and watch it, the "empirical evidence" is bad enough, and the other talking points are so fucking tired that it's worth the watch.

ALSO, it's Cockshott. AGAIN. How many threads do we have to have on that guy? It feels like we refute a paper of his once a week.

>>100905

Please don't tell me this is the same fucking paper I had to skim two years ago. As >>100925 said, we refute this giganigger every other week.

If it's based on the paper, then I am pretty sure he got his results by making some pretty bad assumptions. He acknowledged that none of his data accurately correlated with labor time, but as one probably tended to be higher and one probably tended to be lower, he assumed that the average of these two would correlate perfectly. That's not just a very big assumption, it's also begging the question.

One thing I always notice is that no one is capable of so much as summarizing Cockshotts methods. It's like you're happy to have him on your side, but you don't actually read and understand him. Can't even blame you that much, as he's nearly unreadable.

>>94468 was our previous Cockshott thread, FWIW.

>>100779

There's very little sexual about it. Commie rhetoric about helping everyone appeals to their maternal instincts, and the free stuff they promise appeals to their desire to find a provider.

>>100780

yes i agree

women are natural-born commies

this is why we should focus on females and not on jews or masons

>>100755

It is our duty to become alpha chads so that we may protec our wamen from the commie menace.

>>100827

>our women

are you slave-owner?

>>100830

Women will be privatize.

>>100878

>Want me to read it?

Look, you queer, no one "wants" you to read this. No one gives a shit if you adopt our views or not, it's not as if adding a room-temperature IQ bag of flesh to our ranks is going to provide us much benefit. If you want to "have a discussion," the onus is on you to make yourself literate enough to engage conversation. Part of that entails proving that you can engage in coherent argumentation, by which I mean something that occurs on a level above fallacious whataboutisms so depressingly common that people have compiled entire lists of them (http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies). People spam articles at you because their time can't be wasted answering questions that they've already answered a dozen times over, posed by a dozen different socialist retards, each of which thinks he's being original. By reading and absorbing the articles, you prove that you have the attention span to engage in your much-vaunted "discussion" on a level which does not waste our time. If you woud like to earn the privilege of a proper reply, prove that you are worthy of it.

>it’s something you put zero effort into.

Once again, you have thus far given no indication that you are worth the effort.

>>100722

>Please for the love of god stop just posting misses articles. At least post some green texts of highlights I’ve wasted so much time reading your guys garbage. Ill read this when i get a chance but put some effort into your posting especially if you expect me to take 30 mins out of my day to read your shit.

Well I did my best, but I think you're out of your depth intellectually here dude. This is like sophomore level econ. It makes sense now that you're a boomer republican. This entire response proves that you are a retard.

>>100708

This guy's right. Monopolies are not inherently negative unless they're artificially propped up by anti free market policies. The point is, any "monopoly" you might think of was artificially propped up by anti free market policies. In a free market, the organization that best serves the consumer wins; that's how competition works. Monopolies as you think of them only happen when the government intentionally suppresses competition so that there are fewer options in a market. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand, maybe try actually reading a book.

>>100859

Oh, it's just an excerpt. I'd have been surprised if he would read even that, but hey, at least he cannot say we didn't help him out.

>>100878

>make me believe you read it, and its not in bad faith, With a nice long effort post to spice up discussion.

>I have a job and a girlfriend sperg boy! I cant read everything especially when it’s something you put zero effort into.

Believe it or not, you're not the only one here who has a life. That I do is the reason why I don't tend to make as many posts as I used to, especially because a lot of the time, it simply didn't pay off. I had a very cordial discussion with an anon once about the action-axiom, and he thanked me for making him understand it better. Months later, he claims I did not help him. Not to mention the dozens of times I dropped names, dates, statistics, and even sources in discussions, only for people to ignore them. So yes, I don't make a big effort for just anyone, not anymore.

Anyway now, here you go, the abbreviated version of Rothbards chapter, from my memory: Ancient Ireland had no political caste at all, no standing police or army, no law, and the kings only duty was to coordinate war efforts. He was commander in chief and that was it, he did nothing else, ever. Criminal punishments were fines, to be collected by private persons, and instead of courts, you had freelance jurists, who also held no political power. Their office, if you may call it so, was founded on custom and reputation. Despite all this, Ireland was doing quite well.

Your name is either Scott, or you just came to hear about the Beatles. But anyways, yeah, back then they had a crazy high taxation rate on the wealthy, and Harrison just learned that he was part of that club all of a sudden. I don't think it's being based, I think it's part of a "Free gibs pls" thing.

Pay attention to the bass line@0:57 , it suddenly goes Blackbird. Speaking of Blackbird, it's a favorite of mine. Paul can play genius-tier bass lines.

Speaking of genius-tier bass: John Entwiste.

>>100823

Is this the /liberty/ music thread?