/liberty/ - Liberty

>>75183

The landlord didn't rape, pillage, and shoot people to acquire the land. The landlord doesn't threaten to put you in a cage for not complying with his decree. If he did, he'd effectively be under the category of king/medieval warlord.

Getting fired from your job or kicked out of the house you're renting is not "aggression" any more than nature is "aggression" on you by making you have mortal needs like hunger and the urge to defecate.

>>75184

>The landlord didn't rape, pillage, and shoot people to acquire the land

That's blatantly historically untrue. Just to take the US as an example, most land was first procured by the government in the Western Expansion and then sold or auditioned to wealthy individuals, and of course the creation of the 13 Colonies wasn't very peaceful before that. Nor does it necessarily have to be true for the chieftain or the king; regardless of how they hold their authority now, their authority is still unjustified.

>The landlord doesn't threaten to put you in a cage for not complying with his decree

Of course he does. If he evicts you and you refuse to leave, then the cops will arrest you and put you in a cage, if you resist further then they'll shoot you. In a stateless society he'd just get the not-cops private security to do something similar, depending on whether private prisons exist or not.

>Getting fired from your job or kicked out of the house you're renting is not "aggression" any more than nature is "aggression" on you by making you have mortal needs like hunger and the urge to defecate.

Except absentee property is not a natural state. A peasant needing land to live is natural, that land being appropriated by a landlord who demands payment and obedience to rules is artificial. He is using the natural state of starvation to coerce the peasant to comply, just like the gunman uses the natural state of bleeding to death to force the victim to comply.

>>75184

But nature IS aggressing against me, it gave me ovaries and wants me to give birth to children instead of letting ME act like a child well into my senior years. It wants me to look pretty and tries to kill me for being obese. It wants me to be born blonde instead of having naturally green hair. It gave me a pussy so that I can't fuck (((the patriarchy))).

Fuck nature, and fuck men.

>>75190

Your irrelevant shitpost is so off-topic and childishly sexist I'm not sure if I'm satirizing feminists or /pol/tards.

>>75189

>First rant

Who ever said the US land claims were legitimate, nigger? The issue is that no one really has a legitimate claim at this point. Land has stolen and shifted hands so many times that finding the "true" owner is virtually impossible now, and giving the land to the "true" owner if you could find them would in itself create aggression since there have likely been peaceful tradeoffs since the initial aggression. It would be like stealing $100 from some stranger because his uncle's room mate happened to steal said $100 from you years ago- two wrongs don't make a right but three rights make a left.

>second rant

The violence you're describing is a direct result of your actions, not the result of someone's reaction. If Kings and States historically "asked people to leave" before throwing them in a cage, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation or the narrative would be different. By remaining on the property after you've been asked to vacate it, you're effectively giving permission to use proportional force to remove you from it. If you're stupid enough to pull out your gun or otherwise make a threat of violence in your refusal to leave, you've given permission for proportional force to remove you with violence. In a non-capitalist anarchist ochlocratic society, it would just be some police-equivalency removing you from the premises (or just outright killing you) so your point is moot. I could just expand your original argument to:

>If the community council says they have ownership over your land as public property, and a right to your memes of production because it magically no longer counts as personal property therefore it's publicly owned, left-wing anarchists consider this a legitimate use of force and any resistance is in fact considered immoral

>third rant

You live out East, don't you? Land is abundant and readily available on the Western side of the USA, it's just not habitable because the federal government says so. Under a feudal society you might be able to make a claim that the initial aggression of the state/states has entrapped the peasant, but we live in a modern society. Even the tankies and Syndicalists/Mutualists agree that those who don't work don't eat. Your argument boils down to "I have to eat to survive, therefore it's oppression that I have to work in order to eat!" There are millions of ways to acquire food, thousands of them require no need to work for another human.

Land development is the product of one's means of production. How is this any different with other capital? Why can I rent out tools but not property development, if both are actively maintained by the proprietor?

>>75192

This. Undeveloped land is abundant, comprising <5% of the US.

http://thevane.gawker.com/these-simple-maps-show-how-little-of-the-united-states-1593448044

>>75201

> abundant

> less than 5%

anoooo

>>75201

You wrote that wrong anon

also

> gawker

Didn't these fuckers go bankrupt a god damned while ago?

>>75221

>Because historically and currently the proprietor did not develop the land

The proprietors did develop the land through building and maintenance.

>the peasants have pay a tax to a violent parasite

Actually, they pay rent and not property taxes. Creating and lending any commodity is not parasitic behavior.

>how does that justify an increase on what they originally put in?

Increase of what?

>>75225

>The proprietors did develop the land through building and maintenance.

If we're talking about peasant farmland, no, they didn't.

>Actually, they pay rent and not property taxes

Changing the name doesn't change what it is.

>Creating and lending any commodity is not parasitic behavior.

Demanding more than you put in, is.

>Increase of what?

An increase of capital or labor. If someone puts in $100, how do you justify them getting back $200?

>>75207

>Gawker

Yes they did. Though I heard they tried to rebrand themselves as a magazine called the Cuck. I'm not joking.

>>75228

Their logo was a black silhouette of a rooster.

>>75227

>If we're talking about peasant farmland

We are not. If we were talking about peasant farmland , and if the peasant developed it (and being no signed contract with any supposed manor lord) then it would be their property under a capitalist system.

>Changing the name doesn't change what it is.

Rent is voluntary and used for the maintenance of the development. Taxes are involuntary and mostly wasted on other state ventures.

>Demanding more than you put in, is.

Rent covers the cost of the development plus maintenance, taxes, and other expenses. That is why rent is usually slightly more (at least where I live) than a homeowner's or facility owner's monthly mortgage/insurance/taxes payments.

>An increase of capital or labor.

How is my rental property in incurring additional labor or capital? Could you provide specific examples?

>>75277

>If we were talking about peasant farmland , and if the peasant developed it (and being no signed contract with any supposed manor lord) then it would be their property under a capitalist system.

All the tenant farmers in the capitalist 3rd world disagree.

>Rent is voluntary and used for the maintenance of the development. Taxes are involuntary and mostly wasted on other state ventures.

Rent is just as voluntary as taxes; if you don't want to pay them you can leave, if you stay and refuse to pay them you get sent to prison. Both are also used for maintenance and to enrich the owners.

>Rent covers the cost of the development plus maintenance, taxes, and other expenses

You're forgetting the most crucial part: profits. Without profits the landlord wouldn't even bother.

>How is my rental property in incurring additional labor or capital? Could you provide specific examples?

The only reason you have it in the first place and rent it out is under the assumption that you'll receive more capital than what you put in. No one invests 100k in building an apartment complex if they believe they'll never get back more than that: a profit.

>>75310

Ah yes, the classic "everything I don't like or that the government does is socialism, while it's only capitalism if it's good and free". Please show me how any of these countries have common ownership of the means of production.

>Where are these "3rd world" Capitalist Shit Holes???

Pretty much every 3rd world country since almost all of them have private ownership of the means of production used for commodity production. This includes farmland owned by landlords and worked by tenant farmers.

>>75318

>Pretty much every 3rd world country

And just how many of these countries advocate the use of price controls, subsidies, and taxes in directing the market? For those with the heaviest amounts, what were the ideological positions of the ruling parties?

>>75320

>And just how many of these countries advocate the use of price controls, subsidies, and taxes in directing the market?

Absolutely irrelevant for whether it's socialist or not, a socialist system likely won't even have those things because price controls, subsidies, and arguably taxes, can only exist in a market system, and most theories of socialism advocate abolishing the market.

>For those with the heaviest amounts, what were the ideological positions of the ruling parties?

Actions are louder than words. I don't see a stateless, moneyless, classless society in China, regardless of that fact that the ruling party calls themselves communists.

>>75321

>Unlike Socialists who say "if it's not socialist, it has to be capitalist"

There's theoretically other systems than the two, the state-capitalism of North Korea of Cuba for instance which cannot be neatly described as socialism or capitalism, but the only one that presently exists, other than the aforementioned two exceptions, is Capitalism, considering every country in the world has private ownership (the state being one of the owners matters little) of the means of production used for commodity production.

>Capitalism/Socialism is a thermostat, not a light switch, faggot.

I'd eager to hear about these "thermostat" theorists, especially the ones who call themselves socialists (I know I can't because you made it up because you're an ignoramus who doesn't even know the basic definitions of the theory you criticize).

>>75325

There's no such thing as socialist policies; either a socialist system exists or it doesn't. These policies you're thinking of is called Social Democracy, and Social Democracy is just another flavor of capitalism, one that's just slightly sweeter.

>>75332

>There's no such thing as socialist policies; either a socialist system exists or it doesn't. These policies you're thinking of is called Social Democracy, and Social Democracy is just another flavor of capitalism, one that's just slightly sweeter.

There is such a thing as socialist policies, call them what you want, but just a few of them are enough to ruin a country's economy without a complete "socialist system". I don't need to have someone take a dump on my plate for me to eat shit, just having them spray drops of diarrhea or even dry up their turds and grind them in to very fine powder which they the sprinkle all over my tasty bourgeoisie food would be enough to make me sick. For lack of a better example.

>>75184

INBLIIIIING that's not a legitimate way to acquire land.

>>75325

Social security alone costs us more than a trillion dollars a year, obviously we need to expand it.

>>75336

I don't know what Socdem policies do to a country and I don't care, because I'm not advocating for them, nor do they have any relation whatsoever to Socialism other than in name and in a shared history.

>>75332

>Absolutely irrelevant for whether it's socialist or not, a socialist system likely won't even have those things because price controls, subsidies, and arguably taxes, can only exist in a market system, and most theories of socialism advocate abolishing the market.

It is completely relevant, but maybe not to you since you only showed up within the last week or so, or else you would have seen the responses to this argument. A party with a socialist ideology will pass legislature from a socialist perspective within a market based society…wow, who would have guessed?…oh that's right Venezuela. Somehow you are still hung up on the whole "real socialism" myth. I guess in your mind if a socialist forces a capitalist to do the things the socialist wants, it somehow equals free market capitalism.

>>75344

>A party with a socialist ideology will pass legislature from a socialist perspective within a market based society

And they're either idiots or reformists. Regardless of what they are, what they do has nothing to do with a economy with common ownership of the means of production, nor do their reforms suddenly eliminate private ownership of the MoP or commodity production.

>Somehow you are still hung up on the whole "real socialism" myth

It's either socialism or it's not. If it fails, than it means it's a socialistic failure. Venezuela and Sweden are social democracies; Venezuela is a social democratic failure and Sweden is a social democratic success.

>I guess in your mind if a socialist forces a capitalist to do the things the socialist wants, it somehow equals free market capitalism.

No, it's not free market capitalism (neither is it anywhere else in the world or ever has been), but it's still capitalism.

>>75345

>It's not free market capitalism

Then no one cares. Why does it matter?

>>75349

How "free" the market is doesn't change the underlying system or private property and profiteering.

>>75402

Let me repeat myself:

>How "free" the market is doesn't change the underlying system of private property and profiteering.

>>75399

You said it yourself. It's not real capitalism. :^)

>>75296

>3rd world

Not even capitalist. Just because there is some private ownership (technically not ownership since these "proprietors" pay taxes on them) doesn't mean it is capitalist. Capitalism requires that the "production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), [b]rather than through central planning[/b]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

Since the economies in 3rd world countries are directly or indirectly controlled through state functionaries, they are not capitalistic.

>Rent is just as voluntary as taxes; if you don't want to pay them you can leave

Taxes are mandatory and one cannot leave without paying an obscene exit tax and acquiring a passport. Even one's income obtained overseas is taxed despite being an expatriot.

>You're forgetting the most crucial part: profits.

From a lefty like you, I'm surprised you have not heard about the Marxian decreasing rate of profit. In a competitive market, profits are near negligible and only exist as a buffer against risk (and calculating in opportunity cost would negate such perceived profit). The only way someone can profit substantially enough from rent is from zoning restrictions or other methods of artificially limiting supply.

>The only reason you have it in the first place and rent it out is under the assumption that you'll receive more capital than what you put in

Again you haven't provided examples. Where is capital accumulating on my rental property?

>>75420

>look at a heavily interventionist economy

>point out its many shortcomings

>see! we told you capitalism doesn't work!

>just don't look at that freer economy over there

>>75422

By not definition of Socialism except the colloquial American ideological one is Venezuela or other countries like it socialist. Whereas on the other hand, every single mainstream economist will say we live in a capitalist world, and that capitalism is defined by private property and commodity production.

>>75423

>Since the economies in 3rd world countries are directly or indirectly controlled through state functionaries, they are not capitalistic.

>because states assume power over them like every single other country, presently and historically, that somehow means they're actually marketless centrally planned economies.

>Taxes are mandatory and one cannot leave without paying an obscene exit tax and acquiring a passport

The passports are required by the other countries, not your own. There is no exit tax, there's just a price for renouncing your citizenship. The only difference between not paying rent and not paying taxes is the debtors' prison no longer exists for one of them.

>Even one's income obtained overseas is taxed despite being an expatriot.

The US is almost the only country that does that, and they have no way of enforcing that unless you voluntarily comply.

>I'm surprised you have not heard about the Marxian decreasing rate of profit

It's called decreasing, not non-existent.

>In a competitive market, profits are near negligible and only exist as a buffer against risk (and calculating in opportunity cost would negate such perceived profit). The only way someone can profit substantially enough from rent is from zoning restrictions or other methods of artificially limiting supply.

So, apparently all landlords just do it as a hobby or charity and don't actually expect any return above breakeven from their capital and labor.

>Where is capital accumulating on my rental property?

By definition, a successful business is one that makes profits, that's capital accumulating. Absolutely any successful business is an example.

>>75427

I never used Venezuela as a failed capitalist economy. This whole retarded derailment from this sentence:

>>If we were talking about peasant farmland , and if the peasant developed it (and being no signed contract with any supposed manor lord) then it would be their property under a capitalist system.

>All the tenant farmers in the capitalist 3rd world disagree.

>>75432

What does all this have to do with soy products?

OP is a perfect example of the pathetic whining communists that have reduced libertarians to nothing more than a punchline.

Git gud or get out of life, poorfag.

>>75439

ikr? Needs more soy tbh fam

>>75432

>The passports are required by the other countries, not your own.

1. Everywhere one can go from the US, except international waters, requires a US passport.

2. That same passport is requried for rentry .

> there's just a price for renouncing your citizenship.

That's the exit tax.

>that somehow means they're actually marketless centrally planned economies.

I didn't say market-less. If there is any central planning, it is not capitalistic by the above definition.

>they have no way of enforcing that unless you voluntarily comply

They can enforce it by seizing any assets you have in the US

>It's called decreasing, not non-existent

Except it has should have been non-existant by now.

>So, apparently all landlords just do it as a hobby or charity and don't actually expect any return above breakeven from their capital and labor.

Where do you get that assertion? Landlords are like any other enterpeneur. They seek profit but, existing in a copetitive markets, hardly obtain it relative to risk.

>By definition, a successful business is one that makes profits, that's capital accumulating.

Sorry, but profit is not capital:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

>>75547

The US has one of the three highest expatriation fees in the world. That's not a tax, it's an extortion.

since you keep arguing this retarded point

capitalism and a state are antithetical, the more power the state has the lest capitalist it is

>>75221

>Europe and specifically the UK workers were needed for the new factories, but no one wanted to work in them because they had a comfy farm to live off of, therefor through legal processes and state-backed violence, they took those farms from them in order to ensure the workers had no where else to go. In American where there was no extensive preexisting peasant class to turn into proletariats, they instead skipped the middle part and just prevented the majority of immigrants from easily acquiring land.

Actually, those framers left for the industrial sector because of higher real incomes. Improvement in agriculture and other cottage industries that rural folk employed made labor redundant and decreased wages in this sector. You see this in other industrial countries lacking enclosure laws. In regards to America, there were land restriction laws prior to the industrial revolution (e.g. Hudson Valley), yet most did not flock to factories but became tenant farmers.