No.100306 [View All]
>why should I embrace repulicanism?
Our political system is broke to fuck but anarchists and libertarians cannot make valid arguments to protect consumers from monopolies. One of the only functions of the government is to protect it’s citizens part of that is breaking up monopolies that fuck the consumer over.
>reeeeee government causes monopolies what about my diseconomy and copyright laws!
As far as I can tell diseconomies aren’t a thing that can exist in a advanced society, And while copyright needs to be reformed copyright laws have the ability to benefit the consumer i.e. if I buy a Ruger pistol I know it’s actually made by Ruger an the name means something. Also its fair to the person who made ruger to benefit souly from it for a time.
The libertarian an anarchist are often forced to make Fringe arguments that you need a political science degree to understand and no ones sure if they actually work. A Republican can make an almost intuitive argument from a classical liberal perspective while still championing a small weak government.
I know the party is garbage with neocons but the foundation and ideas are still a sound is ever. So This thread is for arguing about that and general discussion.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100316
>And while copyright needs to be reformed copyright laws have the ability to benefit the consumer i.e. if I buy a Ruger pistol I know it’s actually made by Ruger an the name means something. Also its fair to the person who made ruger to benefit souly from it for a time.
1 - That's trademark, not copyright.
2 - "Trademarks" can be better managed by actually treating it as fraud. Here is a relevant Kinsella block-quote: "Trademark law ought to be reformed by abolishing the right of trademark 'owners' to sue 'infringers' (except perhaps as proxy for customers, when consent can be presumed or proved…), and treating this as a case of the customer’s right to sue a vendor who defrauds him as to the nature of the good purchased."
I am putting this under a spoiler because I don't want to distract from your points, but there were enough grammatical mistakes that I feel I should mention them. I bring this up because these mistakes make it hard to take you seriously. You should have used "e.g." instead of "i.e.," you meant "solely" instead of "souly," "its" should have had an apostrophe, after appositives you should use commas, the first "a" should have been an "an," you use "an" when you mean "and," and Ruger was capitalized inconsistently. These are just a few mistakes I found in those few sentences I just quoted, but there are many throughout the rest of your writing.
>The libertarian an anarchist are often forced to make Fringe arguments that you need a political science degree to understand and no ones sure if they actually work. A Republican can make an almost intuitive argument from a classical liberal perspective while still championing a small weak government.
It is incredibly difficult to be logically consistent as a Republican. As just one example:
>One of the only functions of the government is to protect it’s citizens part of that is breaking up monopolies that fuck the consumer over.
I can think of another giant monopoly that fucks over its consumer base on a regular basis: the government. This makes your sentence appear contradictory, and you will need a political science degree to defend it. Anarchocapitalism may indeed sound like an extreme opinion (if you are an editor for the Washington Post), but a lot of the people who come to that side do so out of a desire for intellectual rigor.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100318
>>100313
>No not exactly, A diseconomy is when the cost per unit rises an the company fails as a result.
You don't think the cost per unit will rise once a place becomes crowded or too hard to manage? Even if the company is managed into different sections. One section has to ask the head to go on with something and they could be limited with budget and not allowed to take risks. A smaller company doesn't need to ask a head for permission to do something.
>Also you never answered my questions last thread. As automation continues to advance how are you ever going to have a diseconomy? When businesses have the efficiency of some super computer, and diminishing productivity is not a concern for robots? How could a diseconomy ever arise in such a world?
Well wouldn't all companies be able to implement automation once it becomes more affordable and productive than human labor. It also depends on the context whether it's in a factory or journalism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100319
>>100316
>but a lot of the people who come to that side do so out of a desire for intellectual rigor.
ancap has a lot of contradictions and is sometimes inconsistent. some ancaps claim that you can enforce an NDA while you're on your property
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100322
>>100319
>some ancaps claim that you can enforce an NDA while you're on your property
I'm assuming you mean "an NDA [made] while you're on your property". That would be entirely ridiculous. Unless, of course, it was agreed upon by all parties. Then it's just partially ridiculous. If you meant something else, I apologize for misunderstanding.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100323
>>100316
>I can think of another giant monopoly that fucks over its consumer base on a regular basis: the government.
I agree but what being a republican entails is so vast that i can agree with it and also say that the government should have the power to break up monopolies. A anarchist can only talk about the monopoly of violence or whatever that the government has, and cant make a argument for breaking up monopolies. So they resort to pretending like they wouldn’t exist. There evidence for this is shaky at best.
>Anarchocapitalism may indeed sound like an extreme opinion (if you are an editor for the Washington Post), but a lot of the people who come to that side do so out of a desire for intellectual rigor.
Anarchy is a extreame idea, to everyone except anarchist. made by overly optimistic people who are dishonest to themselves as too the way the world actually works. You’re intellect is over rated shown by how we are all susceptible to pipe dream political ideas, and theory. I mean its sort of like the communist who thinks the solution to a bad government is MORE government.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100325
>>100311
>showed the price per unit plateauing instead of rising like they would in a diseconomy
Of course it would plateau before rising costs are observed, why are you saying this like it's some great contradiction? Why would any business continue to expand once it became clear that expanding would cost it money? The moment any businessowner notices that his expansion is costing money, he would sell off assets and contract his business back to the point where his costs were no longer increasing and profit is maximized. Diseconomies of scale don't exist as something you directly observe in an economy, but as a state of affairs that would potentially exist, should businesses choose to expand production beyond the optimum.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100328
>>100325
The graph showed it was a stedy Puerto for seven years.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100329
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100355
>>100328
>>100329
That doesn't contradict my point, if anything it reinforces it. Once again, dis-economies of scale exist as a potential, firms will stop expanding at the end of the plateau, and will never hit the point where costs start to increase, because they don't want to.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100366
>>100355
Then whatever you’re describing isnt a diseconomy dude. Talking to you guys is like talking to religious people. Also I don’t remember the article completely but I doubt the hospital existed for seven years and didn’t get bigger.
>it will never hit the point where a cost per unit rises because they dont want it too.
This is not a diseconomy whatever it is you’re describing. I’m not sure what you’re saying. The whole point behind that libertarian scapegoat is that you don’t have a choice. And that your company will inevitably get too big for its britches and go bankrupt or become uncompetitive. It’s supposed to be the great natural equalizer in markets. And I’ve yet to see any evidence for it in the real world for the past 30 years or so. No one is sure if it exist and with technology making everything more an more efficient it probably doesn’t exist.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100371
It seems to me that every single organization of humans, regardless of their mission statement, will end up attempting to limit your freedom in some way. The best way to live is therefore to wholly embrace autonomous egoism while taking every opportunity to subvert and elude those who currently seek to coerce you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100376
>>100306
>we need a violent ruling class enslaving us to stop monopolies.
the gov is a monopoly, wtf are you talking about? plus big companies are in bed with gov's since forever.
Í don't need "protection" from the government ffs
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100377
>>100366
All right doublenigger, let's try this one more time.
>This is not a diseconomy whatever it is you’re describing. I’m not sure what you’re saying. The whole point behind that libertarian scapegoat is that you don’t have a choice. And that your company will inevitably get too big for its britches and go bankrupt or become uncompetitive
That's not how it works at all. Why would the company "inevitably" get too big? Companies are run by people, they don't grow on their own. They may potentially see disenconomies of scale if they get big enough, but they won't get big enough, they will reach some critical size and stop expanding past that point. Management will have a conversation that goes something like this:
>hey, look at our annual net income report. Ever since we put in that new factory, our costs have gone up by a greater amount than our revenue has, and our profits have gone down as a result
<gosh, sounds like we're going to lose money if we keep expanding. We probably shouldn't increase our facility size anymore for the time being.
>yeah, in fact we should sell that new factory to someone else since it's just costing us money. Guess we're staying at this size for the time being.
Do you not understand how potentialities work? If I told you "if you keep eating a dozen twinkies every day, you're going to become obese and die," does the threat of obesity disappear if you decide to stop eating the twinkies and maintain your current weight? That's what a diseconomy of scale is, an undesirable potentiality, which companies avoid because it's undesirable. Maybe you'll understand it better if you hear it in someone else's words:
https://mises.org/library/sunk-costs-and-contestable-markets
https://mises.org/wire/why-understanding-roundaboutness-so-important
>It’s supposed to be the great natural equalizer in markets.
No, it's not. It's one factor out of hundreds that promotes competition and efficient allocation in the market. You're assuming it's the only factor because that simplistic approach makes it easier for you to reach the conclusion that satisfies your emotions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100378
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100382
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100407
My ultimate issue with the Republican party in image form.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100449
>>100377
>That's not how it works at all. Why would the company "inevitably" get too big?
That is how it works im not sure if you know what your talking about. So im headend to even respond to this shit.
>they get big enough, but they won't get big enough, they will reach some critical size and stop expanding past that point. Management will have a conversation that goes something like this:
Each market has a saturation point, thats when they move into new markets. So once you have a monopoly on shoes you move into the rubber market so you can get your souls cheeper and also get into the rubber game. That is a not a diseconomy, its a stable platform to be from. Also you can increase profits once you reach this point too! By constantly buying up competition, so in reality its not even a true Plateau. Because said shoe company would just buy out other shit till they had the whole market cornered.
A true diseconomy is when that show company is so large that it leterally can’t function well anymore and they cost to produce shoes goes up constantly. It’s essentially like a engines governor on the market. Thats the only way it works
>links
You have shown that you leterally don’t know what your talking about so im not going to spend 40 min reading your articles. You can make claims and then give sources with screen shoots but im not going to risk wasting my time. Im also not reading anymore misses articles so if you want me to see something quote it here directly. Im not reading anymore of that stuff.
>Its one of hundreds of things that keep markets in check
Name six of them then.
>>100376
<we need a violent ruling class enslaving us to stop monopolies
>*picture of the Gadsten flag being stepped on by Bank of America*
>at least its not the goberment!!!!!1111
Your going to be stepped on. Ideally it should be as little as possible because the government steps on monopolies an you step on the government.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100451
>>100449
If you depend on the bank's money, then yes, which I don't, so no.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100456
>>100407
To be fair classical liberalism is a large part of people who vote and are republicans, today an historically.
There are few reasons you would want to identify as a republican if your a libertarian currently.
>libertarians don’t have a satisfactory way of preventing monopolies
>to help push the republican party out of social and religious conservatism.
I mean cuz libertarians are just non conservative teenagers who line drugs, and guns. Far too often for most people libertarian just means
>“I don’t like Democrats or Republicans and I don’t know what a libertarian is, and ive never really thought about it but I saw a interview with ron Paul and I think he’s cool”
You guys end up voting with us on every elections when you start owning homes anyways.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100457
>>100449
>You have shown that you leterally [sic] don’t know what your [sic] talking about so im [sic] not going to spend 40 min reading your articles.
>citing your sources means you don't know what you're talking about
Alright, if someone else wants to spend time talking to this nigger go ahead. My time is spent more profitably elsewhere.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100575
>>100366
>The whole point behind that libertarian scapegoat is that you don’t have a choice.
>talking to you guys is like talking to religious people.
Poisoning the well won’t get you any construction discourse.
>And that your company will inevitably get too big for its britches and go bankrupt or become uncompetitive. It’s supposed to be the great natural equalizer in markets. And I’ve yet to see any evidence for it in the real world for the past 30 years or so.
Are you saying that you haven’t seen a large company go bust by expanding beyond market saturation in the past 30 years? What about the dotcom bubble?
>This is not a diseconomy whatever it is you’re describing.
I don’t have the graph with me but I assume from the discussion in this thread that the price per unit no longer decreases and plateaus at a certain point of output. Effectively the economies of scale no longer apply because the marginal cost of production no longer decreases, which is exactly when diseconomies of scale occurs, according to Investopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/diseconomiesofscale.asp
“It takes place when economies of scale no longer function for a firm.” Note that price per unit will still continue to decrease until the marginal profit reaches zero at the plateau point.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100576
>>100319
>some ancaps claim that you can enforce an NDA while you're on your property
Why shouldn't you be able to be able to enforce an NDA? You don't even need a legal system for that. If it's an employee, terminate his employment with prejudice. If it's a reviewer, blacklist him and stop sending samples. If it's a vendor, cancel your contracts with them and do business with their competitors instead. The whole point of anarchocapitalism is that it's financially unwise to do asshole things like violate contracts without good reason.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100596
>>100306
>republicans fight against monopolies
it's enough to kek
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100696
>>100306
>anarchists and libertarians cannot make valid arguments to protect consumers from monopolies. One of the only functions of the government is to protect it’s citizens part of that is breaking up monopolies that fuck the consumer over.
Monopolies literally cannot exist without the support of the State. Monopolies are created through regulation that raises the barriers to entry for an industry high enough to stifle effective competition. In a true free market, monopolies aren't actually a thing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100697
>>100696
>citations needed
>>100596
At first i was like
>it's enough to kek
But then this faggot broke up my steel company, and got workers higher wages while preventing unions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100701
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100702
>>100697
<citations needed
>mentions a Carnegie steel, a company literally propped up by government subsidy
Come on now, you aren't even trying at this point.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100703
>>100697
>A Progressive
top jej, also
>broke up my steel company
Sorry to crush your dreams here but you might want to take a closer look at his relationship with J.P Morgan if you genuinely think this guy is your poster boy. "Good trusts" and "Bad trusts", might want to take a good look.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100704
Man I've had conversations with hardcore Marxists about anarcho-capitalism and it always leads to
>muh monopolies
but those are always the people that in the same breath defend the bailouts of the auto industry and the banks. That level of cognitive dissonance is actually impressive.
>>100697
Also I am genuinely curious if you can think of any monopoly that has existed without the support of the State
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100708
>>100704
monopolies aren't even that good of an argument against ancaps, since a monopoly in a free market means it's doing good and it also never happened in history.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100722
>>100704
>Also I am genuinely curious if you can think of any monopoly that has existed without the support of the State
No just like you cant give an example of a market not forming monopolies, without government regulation. But im by know means a expert so me not knowing of a example means leterally nothing. An unlikely you im capable of admitting what I don’t know, like a adult.
>>100703
>make claims that require at least days of studying to confirm of deny. An no provide evidence further evidence.
>”hur hur hur got um”
We’re hip to your libertarian tricks you teenage cumquat.
Also Roosevelt was based how dare you. You’re so politically clinical i bet there isn’t one US president you wouldn’t shit on.
>>100701
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.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100725
>>100722
>Days of studying
They really don't though, you're just kind of retarded. Again, 'good trusts and bad trusts', he selectively chose what to break up and what to keep in tact for the sake of the business interests he was in bed with. Hell, the fact that Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was made chairman of the National Monetary Commission on Roosevelts behalf should slap you out of your retardation. He was no different than any other cronyist, in fact, one could argue he's the blueprint on which most modern presidents are based off of. He lied, deceived and even stole on a global level. Hell he began to question Tafts patriotism and wanted him gone once he started fucking with Roosevelt's bread basket (which was ironically Morgan's businesses, so much for breaking up Steel companies.)
>We’re hip to your libertarian tricks you teenage cumquat.
Oh you sure got me and my magic mind tricks. Gee I guess now I have to donate all my money to Israel and kvetch on about how I love small government all while shooting myself in the foot by expanding it, kind of like most of you absolute retards.
>Also Roosevelt was based how dare you. You’re so politically clinical i bet there isn’t one US president you wouldn’t shit o
Are you retarded nigger? This fucking faggot started the progressive cancer in the United States, proceeded to conquer the Philippines, stole land from the Panamanians, bypassed permission of congress in order to pay the Dominican Republics debts with American money and defiled any governmental limit at every corner.
Shit, even on a personal level he pretended to be a cowboy when in all reality he was just a massive faggot with an inferiority complex from his days as a weak ass kid with severe asthma , he was an attention whore during his whole tenure as a member of the New York Police, as the commander of the Rough Riders, making sure to always bring his butt buddies in the press with him to kiss his ass. He may not have been the start in regards to the downfall of this country, but god damn he made for an accelerationists wet dream.
>You’re so politically clinical i bet there isn’t one US president you wouldn’t shit on.
Clinical? I'm afraid my health doesn't rely on sucking the cocks of every politican who makes my cock hard unfortunately. If you meant cynical however, then you'd be correct.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100727
>>100722
>No just like you cant give an example of a market not forming monopolies, without government regulation. But im by know means a expert so me not knowing of a example means leterally nothing. An unlikely you im capable of admitting what I don’t know, like a adult.
If you don't know shit, then why are you so adamant that you're correct? You've just admitted that the ancap position has not just the empirical advantage, but the a priori one as well.
< that require at least days of studying to confirm or deny
More like 20 minutes, tops, of reading. If you're too much of an ADHD faggot to read on your own time, instead of having shit spoonfed to you in little morsels of pastel-colored infographics, you're going to be a useless ignoramus all your life. Although I must thank you for confessing this to us; the fact that you can't be arsed to put even a token effort to read things that are handed to you is proof that democracy is doomed to failure.
>We’re hip to your libertarian tricks you teenage cumquat.
I'm sorry, having an argument is now a "trick"? You're not in a position to call yourself honest about what you do and do not know if you dismiss anything that contradicts you as fiendish sorcery.
>Also Roosevelt was based how dare you. You’re so politically clinical i bet there isn’t one US president you wouldn’t shit on.
<Waaaah! Waaaah! Stop making fun of things that I like!1
>404 - argument not found.
Roosevelt was the first Progressive president. He was the one who described the Oval Office as a "bully pulpit", frequently abused his power, and set the stage for modern US interventionism, perhaps to an even greater degree than Wilson. There is plenty about Roosevelt to criticize, you're just too blinded by the image in your head of a cowboy outdoorsman meme man to see it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100730
>>100727
>There is plenty about Roosevelt to criticize, you're just too blinded by the image in your head of a cowboy outdoorsman meme man to see it.
Tbh your the same dude who didn’t even know what a diseconomy was. I think you got your ancap goggles on a little to tight and its clouding your world veiw. Not a Roosevelt expert but i know enough to know hes a badass. Go be cynical some place else.
>20mins tops
Really? Wow! Spoken like sommeone whos leterally never had to do research into any topic ever.
>y so adamant?
Because i know enough to know i know enough; about enough. That is too reeeeee stay mad brainlet! Lol!!!!11111 XDXDXDXD. Jk but really tho. you are dumb, enough to think you’re right thats a the problem. I cant talk to you because you are dumb enough to not admit any fault or anything you’re not sure about. You’re essentially a religious person. And I’m not about to try to disprove god to you… metaphorically speaking that is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100733
>>100730
<you're just too blinded by the image in your head of a cowboy outdoorsman meme man to see it.
>Not a Roosevelt expert but i know enough to know hes a badass
Thank you for proving my point so succinctly. Kindly learn to spell, or go back to >>>/qresearch/ with the other retirees.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100751
>preventing monopolies
<meanwhile Google, Amazon, and Disney control nearly everything
Kill yourself
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100760
>>100722
>just like you cant give an example of a market not forming monopolies, without government regulation.
Cospaia, Moresnet, Icelandic Commonwealth, Brehonic Ireland
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100764
>>100760
>Brehonic Ireland
Nigger wat?
Citations needed dude you can’t just drop shit like that. If it was true and it was such a utopian world also, I would they have ever stopped?
A short green text explanation of any one of them with a relevant sources. Otherwise you’re just another dude listing shit like it means anything.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100765
>>100764
>A short green text explanation of any one of them with a relevant sources
>spoonfeed pls or I ignore you
I'll give you one guess as to why you aren't being taken seriously.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100766
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100792
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100836
>>100792
>It lists tens types of coupling including three types of formal marriage, five unions where there are sexual relations but no sharing of property or cohabitating, union by rape and union by two who are mentally incompetent.
how did they define mental incompetency? being unable to plan? being unable to communicate? being a pagan?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100840
>>100764
Here you go, there's your source.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100859
>>100840
This guy spergs out and REEEEEEs when you ask him to read 1,000 word articles without a spoonfed, dumbed-down summary, you really think you can get him to read For a New Liberty?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100878
>>100840
See this* >>100859
I refused to do work if you’re not gonna do any to make my job easier. Blame your peers you guys constantly post garbage that I spent 40 minutes reading and it’s just garbage and the discussion goes nowhere as a result of me wasting my time. I don’t benefit, you don’t benefit, so I’m not gonna consider wasting my time unless you put some effort into posting.
still no one has they just post one link in there like “here you go. Haha gottum” I’m not falling for that shit anymore
Want me to read it? make me believe you read it, and its not in bad faith, With a nice long effort post to spice up discussion.
Or you can just whine like that unironic sperg above me and complain because I’m not doing the hard work for you. I have a job and a girlfriend sperg boy! I cant read everything especially when it’s something you put zero effort into.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100884
>>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.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100889
>>100884
>He responded again
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100890
>>100889
>still unable to read sources
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100896
>>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.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100903
>>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.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.