[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4am / ashleyj / cafechan / leftpol / mde / shame / sonyeon / zenpol ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 68d8ca6a5367d86⋯.jpg (83.37 KB, 695x703, 695:703, 1517458259759.jpg)

 No.78074

How will ancaps ever recover?

 No.78075

>>78074

but it was not real communism


 No.78076

>>78074

preddy funny, tho the problem is that serfs really couldn't choose the landlords they worked for.

however even when they were able to (happened at differing times) there was still an unjust, parasitic aristocrat class


 No.78112

File: 3d4d7c265b47f97⋯.png (412.67 KB, 576x566, 288:283, job creator.png)

File: 461c8e71530368c⋯.jpg (12.37 KB, 240x240, 1:1, really made me thunk.jpg)

>>78076

>an unjust, parasitic aristocrat class


 No.78119

>>78074

How does this discredit libertarianism?


 No.78131

>>78076

At one point they could choose. You've got to remember that feudalism itself is the perversion of Carolingian Empire's system created by Charles I (Charlemagne). Feudal lords were never supposed to be hereditary, but they simply became so due to the vast size of the empire, subsequent weaker Emperors, and division of the empire due to Gavelkind inheritance.

Furthermore the nobles were not parasitic by definition in spite of what >>78076 and >>78112 might have you believe. They did serve a purpose; to secure the ability for people to make a living free from the fear of violence. The Carolingian Empire coincided and created what's called the "Carolingian Renaissance". Charlemagne was a great driver in this, and attempted to create an imperial school system, with a unified curriculum in order to stop Latin fragmenting into different languages (It failed, which is why we have Italian, French, and Spanish languages).

There were significant numbers of free farmers in Europe during the rise of the Empire, but they existed under constant thread from marauding bands of knights and villains. Charlemagne encouraged everyone to pledge fealty to a good lord in order to secure his life and property. Unfortunately due to the inherited, Feudal system that resulted that choice later became impossible.


 No.78137

>>78074

Holy shit, christcucks absolutely BTFO. How will their petulant little assholes ever recover?


 No.78141

Bluntly, I'm guessing when they crack a history book and discover that Capitalism(tm) is a feudalist reaction against, of all things, market anarchism, anclaps are going to cry.

Nice comic, though.


 No.78148

>>78074

In the great words of a great man, "If you kill your enemies, they win". I think the guy with the shovel just couldnt handle how btfo he was getting. Commies have some explaining to do


 No.78191

>>78141

Really? Any source on that?


 No.78204

File: 48fa91cb3e27159⋯.jpg (58.9 KB, 508x558, 254:279, smugiddy smug.jpg)

>>78131

Good information, thank you.

>>78141

Source?

>a history book

Oh, so you mean your history textbook from highschool. How very advanced.


 No.78205

>>78074

>WORDS WORDS WORDS

Quality meme


 No.78213

>>78074

Now I've read the pic, and I must say, it's pretty stupid. The ancap makes arguments that are, for the most part, correct. They seem stupid because he is a poor, oppressed peasant, of course, and because he supports feudalism, which we all know was an oppressive system. Or so the narrative goes. In reality, the Middle Ages weren't that bad compared to everything that came earlier. How much of the population in Greece was enslaved, eighty percent? And not just in Sparta - which may or may not have slaughtered the slaves regularly to assert the power of the ruling class - but also in oh so civilized Athens. Did you know that Aristotle said that only the nobility can be virtuous, and that he compared slaves to animals? His opinion, while not shared unanimously, was far from marginalized.

Rome, meanwhile, had not just the gladiator games, it also regularly crucified people. I've heard estimates that it killed one million people in the Colosseum alone, sometimes by letting bulls rape them to death. The Romans also kept up the practice of slavery.

Europe during the Middle Ages had little, if any slavery. Human sacrifice was prohibited. Every person was seen as, well, a person. Serfs had rights and obligations just like their lord did. They were in a much weaker position, there was oppression, but compare their lot to that of a slave in a silver mine (or on a cross). The Middle Ages also weren't as culturally sterile as is commonly claimed. The Scholastics weren't just blunt apologists, many of them were very skilled philosophers and scientists. Their philosophy also laid the foundations for natural science and for individualism.

Yet, ancient Greece and Rome are romanticized, while the Middle Ages are seen as the "Dark Ages". I blame the propaganda of the Reformation and later the French Revolution, but that's a side issue. What I want to get at is, this picture works because it invokes the Dark Ages-meme. You see this peasant talk about how awesome feudalism is and you think that it's right in front of his eyes that it wasn't, so what truth could there possibly be in his wall of text?

That feudalism does not mirror capitalism, that's another thing. An apologetic for capitalism will of course sound whack when you apply it to feudalism. The two systems had some significant differences. I don't want to dwell on that, though, because I don't want to waste my time engaging an emotional appeal with the power of reason. Plus, my family is breathing down my neck because it's lunch time, and yet here I am, explaining basic fucking history to you. Thanks, prick.


 No.78214

>>78074

The AnCap would not start that line of reasoning. The guy who made this uses it to make it easy on himself. AnCaps are not concerned with who owns what. The only thing that matters is how they've acquired it and continue to possess it.

Attempting to criticize something without knowing it only makes you look smug and intellectually lazy. Especially when you attempt to criticize someone's theory by interpreting it though you own instead of first testing its internal consistency.


 No.78257

>>78141

>market anarchism

You mean like a form of anarchism where people are freely able to exhange goods and services without the state interfering? Like a market that is totally free? Sounds like a great invention you lefties sure are smart.


 No.78289

File: d2136b6913efd01⋯.png (115.46 KB, 857x773, 857:773, communism porky.png)

>>78112

Which race owns all the banks?


 No.78298

Libertarianism where one person doesn't own 10000000000000% of matter in the universe is the best system. I want libertarianism with a maximum wage because that's the only way greedy faggots don't bite off more than they can chew. Maximum wage starts at 1 million dollars a year. That is enough to open two decent sized breweries. There are zero scenarios where I have two breweries and am not content and willing to help others become the best they can be so they can use their strengths to improve the world.


 No.78299

You can in theory in a full libertarian system use a variety of tricks to aquire all the property in the world. All it would take is some lies really. That is fucking retarded. The way things used to be was yeah you could advance but everyone knew society would collapse if one person decided to be a jew. The only reason libertarianism looks fucking retarded to 99.9 percent of the world is because most people just want a simple life and there is zero appeal in letting some more douchebags play life by no rules, and all these nulibertarians worship the state/monopolies/corporations who violate antitrust laws and concentrate all power into a few hands.

The only way libertarianism ever works is if we start small, aknowledge that everyone not having stability leads to complete chaos, then we work towards absolute freedom. A small safety net which leads to no safety net as we evolve.


 No.78360

>ancaps

>justifying owning land and engaging commerce by taxes

what?

Also, wasn't the industrial revolution that gave peasants the riches necessary to buy lands?


 No.78361

>>78299

> aquire all the property in the world. All it would take is some lies

No, it takes a state to help you

>if one person decided to be a jew

By using the state, you mean. When was the last time you saw some evil big corporation jew people out of their money without some state benefit, usually in the form of some law (laid with the best of intentions, so retards wouldn't question it) that hinders competition.

Really, just provide me ONE example of a low-regulation market that lead to a monopoly/oligopoly


 No.78366

File: 94fbef2e0678791⋯.jpg (86.23 KB, 695x703, 695:703, 68d8ca6a5367d86fe4ef5718cb….jpg)


 No.78481

>>78366

Nice.


 No.78495

File: 6b0d62e178ba5db⋯.jpg (180.34 KB, 1218x1076, 609:538, 6b0d62e178ba5db498f968a975….jpg)

>>78366

Am unironically an anarchofeudalist now


 No.78518

>>78495

Ancap is basically anfeudalist when you realize a non-state fief is just a corporation


 No.78525

>>78518

Communism is basically feudalistic when your realize that a hierarchy of worker soviets is just a lord system


 No.78608

>>78525

it was not real communism xD


 No.78630

>>78525

The soviet is (an-)soc, not communist.

It has everything to do with the agreement of the participants (though formally, it stays beneath having even that much structure), and absolutely nothing to do with the means of production.


 No.78637

>>78630

>The soviet is (an-)soc, not communist.

<Its not real communism

>It has everything to do with the agreement of the participants

Great! Welcome to AnCap! I did not know that communism was actually capitalism.


 No.78639

>>78637

It's not real communism, it's not unreal communism, it's not communism at all. It has literally nothing to do with the means of production.

Communism is simply applying free-market concepts to -creation- rather than -exchange.- No entry barriers (increasing MoP access, such as open-access MoP) = more wealth.

Also, you should boot MLs, because they have no idea what they're talking about. :p

>Great! Welcome to AnCap! I did not know that communism was actually capitalism.

Socialism, not communism. There's still no MoP here.

Familiar with mutualism at all?


 No.78643

>>78639

>It has literally nothing to do with the means of production.

<Electing a soviet to manage things has nothing to do with the means of production

okay sure thing bud

>Familiar with mutualism at all?

<Proudhon the anarchist was actually a communist

mutualism is really just closet ancap


 No.78651

>Electing a soviet to manage things has nothing to do with the means of production

Pretty much.

Politics versus economics. Just because they rarely bump into each other, doesn't make them the same.

>Proudhon the anarchist was actually a communist

Again, socialism.

The closest socialism ever came to communism is that the Rochdale principles require that membership be open to all… but, communism stops being communism the minute it's placed under socialism, because this would inhibit individual access.

Communism =/= socialissm. You can not use them interchangeably.

>mutualism is really just closet ancap

Well, excellent, because it's also a perfect example of actually-existing socialism (not communism). To date, there has not been a mutual entity which is not textbook socialism in action.

Its slight deviations from ancap are also the only (nongeoist) reason the (non-meme-tier) kinda make fun of you : your naieve willingness to be the juinor shareholder where you rest. :)

Everyone else thinks that's suicidal at best.


 No.78655

>>78651

>your naieve willingness to be the juinor shareholder where you rest

Thinking that every shareholder should be equal is insane.


 No.78661

>>78655

…and yet, those organizations are still flourishing just fine.

Meanwhile, in that "buy a boat" thread down the way, you're the poor idiot that eagerly signs on for the "you only own 49%, I'm afraid you'll have to swim."

Actually signing up for that (and paying money for the experience) is why people think you're dumb.


 No.78662

>>78661

>Working at all instead of leaching off of welfare


 No.78669

>>78662

The "exploit the succdem" tactic would work much better were it not for fiat currency.

Bad news. The government just prints the crap. You cannot, actually, bankrupt them. MAYBE you can cause inflation (though, there are ways to avoid this). Maybe not; they can just rob people, for another way to do so.

If the currency were finite and backed, I'd support the "let's get everybody on the dole" as a method to bleed its enforcement arm. Sadly, it ain't so.


 No.78676

>>78669

>You cannot, actually, bankrupt them

But I can bankrupt the capitalists paying the taxes


 No.78714

>>78676

True.

Taxes don't fund the government, though. They just print that shit.


 No.78716

>>78714

>Taxes don't fund the government, though.

*can* print that shit. Taxes do fund the government


 No.78735

That's not how fiat currency works, >>78716


 No.78736

>>78735

>That's not how fiat currency works,

You know that they don't literally just print money to pay for everything right? Thats not how fiat currency works in anywhere but countries that are about to collapse.


 No.78743

>>78643

>mutualism is really just closet ancap

only if "closet ancap" means that i realize that braindead shadowboxing of a fabricated 'Other' solves nothing and leads to a whirlpool of navelgazing cynicism (see also: imageboard culture.


 No.78766

>>78257

hahaha how >>78141 can be so fucking delusional is actually funny


 No.78767

>>78736

>>78736

>only near collapse

[nervous laughter] just fucking end it already


 No.78768

>>78766

Know who else had the same delusion?

Adam Smith.

So it seems >>78257 wasn't being facetious after all, but straight-out honest. While Smith notes land seizure alongside the schemes of the capitalist class, though, most people derive this conclusion from a history of monetary systems… one which quite frequently includes the pro-feudalist reactionary nature.

So, feifdoms and scarce money. Yay capitalism, anti-market since its inception.


 No.78769

>>78768

Smith was most of all Calvinist and he wasn't a free marketer. He loved his job as a comptroller. Because of his religious bias he made such an emphasis on saving, did not recognize entrepreneurship and was overly focused on low skilled labor and social relations instead of devising proper theory. The little that he did do right he plagiarized from previous economists and even his friends while making sure nobody else ever gets any credit. He was so dead set on it he even went after his friends aggressively persecuting them for "plagiarizing" their own ideas from him. There is not a single thing written in The Wealth Of Nations that he came up with. Even the LTV. He managed to set economic theory back two centuries.


 No.78770

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.78819

ITT /liberty/ posters realizing they're in the wrong board.

>>>/monarchy/


 No.78863

>>78819

>"Hey check out this neat system"

>"Not bad, but what if there was a king?"

>"Why?"

>"uhhhhhhhjjjjjjhhhhhhh"


 No.78880

>>78770

thanks for the tip, just downloaded Cantillon's book


 No.78964

>>78770

>economic thought was born in france

>not in spain (school of salamanca)

ree




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4am / ashleyj / cafechan / leftpol / mde / shame / sonyeon / zenpol ]