/liberty/ - Liberty

>>79541

si, naturalmente

>>79549

So was Chile an efficient model of a state? What brought him down?

>>80060

He was arrested in London for violating the NAP.

>>79541

Well, he did prevent Chile from becoming a socialist shithole, and he really helped its economy. The violence he used was excessive and often inhumane, which is to be expected when your enemies are leftist, as they have no concept of honorable conduct, but this doesn't excuse it. He also wasn't a libertarian, I think the whole copper industry was nationalized under him and he kept

I like Franco more. His use of violence was more proportionate.

*shoots people without trial*

its okay because they belong to group X

>>80097

You're just mad because shooting communists without trial is one of the best ways to defend human rights.

>>80101

>projecting

>>80101

Pic needs correction. They won't bother him until he has something worth stealing. As long as he produces nothing of relevance they'd let him be. Considering the AnCap would probably be aware of that, he'd either work his connections to get protection from persecution or never grow his business past a certain point.

>>80097

It's not like it was a completely one sided attack. The bigger monster won. It's hard to take an appeal to "fair trial" from a Communist seriously. It would be an extremely rare sight to find even one who regards justice as anything more than majority opinion, which is only another form of "might makes right."

>>80130

>They won't bother him until he has something worth stealing

There are quite a few Ukrainians buried in a pit somewhere who would disagree

>>79541

Defending property rights is not as important as civil or political rights

>>80135

>Defending property rights is not as important as civil or political rights

Those stem from property rights. He wasn't really "defending property rights" as a principle. If you know anything at all about him you'd know he swayed to no particular side at all. Not even after the mixed success of his "reforms" did he seriously budge to the Right. He wanted to maintain his power and live under some relative order, unlike the absolute decay of the previous Socialist system.

>yfw delete post because of horrible spelling errors and then having to rewrite it again because you forgot to correct it.

I'm losing it lads

>>79541

>Did he effectively defend properly rights?

Absolutely.

You can argue that what he did was cruel and you'd be correct, but to respect the property rights of those whose whole ideology is little else but a justification for theft is a pointless exercise.

It's like if someone took a bunch of thieves, who are most likely connected with much larger networks of thieves, and throwing them in gas chambers. Is it cruel? Absolutely, but does it protect the rights of the individuals to their lives and their property? You bet. I'm not going to advocate for people to go around killing people who are simply self-proclaimed communists (most of these faggots are more of a harm to themselves than anyone else) as such a thing comes with implications of power and ultimately government, but in the same light I'm certainly not going to look on with teary eyes and a furious heart if Marxists have their property violated or are rounded up and thrown out of helicopters. If I don't have a right to my life, my house, my business, etc because you arbitrarily decide what is a 'means of production' and what is not or decide that I don't have a right to anything then the rule should ultimately apply to yourself.

I don't condone what he did, but I'm not going to condemn it either. Chile looks nothing like Venezeula, which is rotting as it's people look to rabbits to feed themselves while living in the most fertile land on earth, and that key detail alone speaks volumes to the importance of Pinochets success. He's no hero, his brutality was quite unnecessary, but he saved his country and to a large extent, the property of those in Chile and that alone grants him some degree of respect in my book.

Kelthuz tune related.

>>80140

In the long run though he did make his country the best in South America through his reforms such as killing leftists. A lot can be learned from that breakthrough in thought

>>80138

> civil or political rights

You can't be serious? Please tell me you're actually joking, tell me that this is some sort of meme post. That's like saying "your right to have a house isn't as important as my right to vote to steal from it".

Politics is little else but speculation in a criminal field and "civil" rights (depending on how we're defining them) are very rarely either civil or right.

No, rights cannot be given.

>to respect the property rights of those whose whole ideology is little else but a justification for theft is a pointless exercise.

So it's okay to kill ancaps, because muh surplus value.

Gotcha.

>>80150

What he said:

>>80152

What's worse, your comment shows that you cannot think outside the confines of your system at all. You don't seem to even be trying. It's like religious people telling atheists they hate God, it's a blatant failure of communication. Understand your opponent before you talk to him.

>>80152

Kinda depends on one's opinion, so yes, it's still okay to kill ancaps - just for being ancaps!

Also, you need to science101 if you're pulling "competing theories do/don't real" by bare assertion.

>>80153

It's kind of difficult to figure out who you're talking to and what you're saying, tbh. I could take it at least two different ways…

>>80154

>Also, you need to science101 if you're pulling "competing theories do/don't real" by bare assertion.

But you did the same thing, if implicitly. Invoking the surplus value without even explaining what it is is only one step above saying "you are wrong". You are reducing the "and here's why" to one small idea without deriving it or showing its implications. It's lazy.

The reason why I don't accept surplus value is because the labor theory of value, on which it is based, holds no weight. I have read the relevant chapters of Capital and Marx never derives it. He basically accepts it as an axiom and then outlines its implications, as analytical philosophers tend to do. It doesn't work for them, and it doesn't work for Marx.

I also just plain don't see how "labor value" is "value" at all. It has nothing to do with the valuation of a thing, neither by individuals, nor even by the market. Nor is it as if labor imparted these kinds of value to things, that is a thesis very easily disproven, including by the praxeological account of how both individual valuations and the market prices work.

It also doesn't hold weight empirically, and yes, I know Cockshott and Cottrell claim the opposite, but I also know almost no leftist is ever willing to so much as sum them up. I looked at their paper, it didn't convince me at all at the time. I really don't feel like going over it again just to figure out where exactly they went wrong. If I remember correctly, they tried to calculate prices from labor hours, but ended up calculating prices from prices.

>>80156

I am talking to you. Your comment here >>80150 shows that you can't think except in the terms of your own system. To elaborate: By the argument of the helicopterfags, the property rights of commies don't have to be respected as they don't respect property rights even in principle. You can't lead their argument ad absurdum by invoking surplus value, as surplus value is a notion they won't accept in the first place.

>>80153

This should be fun. It's a slightly rich field, but I thank you for trying to type meaningfully, rather than the phenomenal amount of one-line bullshit which pervades imageboard trolling in general, and here a fair bit. Thank you.

>The reason why I don't accept surplus value is because the labor theory of value, on which it is based, holds no weight. I have read the relevant chapters of Capital and Marx never derives it.

Before I start, I'd like to say… I loathe Marx.

That said… "value" was essentially another word for "cost," functionally, in the early economic thought which predated Marx, and in a general sense, this also tends to hold up. Costs generally can be traced back to asking a human to do something.

Marx's only addition to the LTV theory popular at the time was to pit that against… free-market discovery of price.

Since you're critiquing Marx's version specifically… HAVE you debunked the legitimacy of the free market? If you have, it'd be interesting to hear it.

Secondly…

>the labor theory of value, on which it is based

Nope.

In terms of science101, its only statement is that successful firms tend to make a profit. That is its only claim, and it is basically independent of either Marx's or non-marxist LTV.

That small part of socialism which pertains to the government of the workplace would tend to STOP making a profit, and pay the people who did the work. This is fairly feasible if you just start your own firm, for instance.

Or in the words of Adam Smith, "in a state of nature, the worker would keep the full fruits of their labor."

Back to the topic, though, they are different and independent ideas. There's a gotcha at the end, but that's at the end of the post.

>I also just plain don't see how "labor value" is "value" at all. It has nothing to do with the valuation of a thing, neither by individuals, nor even by the market. Nor is it as if labor imparted these kinds of value to things, that is a thesis very easily disproven, including by the praxeological account of how both individual valuations and the market prices work.

Yeah, well… that works pretty well UNTIL you get competition and rational actors.

As one of those unsupported axioms, competition tends to drive the price down. The lower floor of price USUALLY involves what one can get someone off their ass for. Hence, a labor theory of (not-easily-eliminable) cost, which archaic works call value.

>>80153 (cont)

It really, really helps to think of "value" as two different words depending on where you are in the time stream. "LTV is standard economics" era, it's a theory of cost.

Currently, as far as I can tell, "value" is used to mean "awesomeness divided by money."

>I know Cockshott and Cottrell claim the opposite, but I also know almost no leftist is ever willing to so much as sum them up.

I haven't read them and have no interest in doing so, honestly.

>If I remember correctly, they tried to calculate prices from labor hours, but ended up calculating prices from prices.

If they're doing the Marxist version, they're seeing what succeeds and fails on the market and finding out how much labor is required to make that price, on average.

LTV (LTC) has ALWAYS been a free-market theory… on all sides. With sufficient competition, arbitrary profit will drop to near-zero, lest someone else undercut you. The same is true on the labor end. Assuming for fiction that all work is equally backbreaking, and there are no barriers to entry, no one will do two hours' work for, say, $10, if they could instead do one hours' work for $10; the labor will flow as easily as the buyer.

In real life, it's a question of whether the work of eight+ years of extra schooling, plus the work of managing a fuckton of debt, is worth the work. In theory, assuming an idealized equal access (when in reality the drooling retard is doing no work, but this is theory), the McWorker and the world-class surgeon are getting paid the SAME, because if one could get paid more for doing less work, labor would flow there.

The only question is whether your $1/hr involves hours of med school in the past, or hours right now. It is theorized, in any case, to be a competitive market.

>>80153 (cont x2)

*All* left theories, including utopian "everything is free" replicator-land, are based foremost in the awesome-space-magic of a frictionless market. The opposition to capitalism, most directly represented by the SEKIII/Rothbard debate, is ALSO based in the free market; the market will become unfree when a) we have masters, and b) it is in their interest that the market be unfree to maintain their mastery, so…

…buuut… back to the gotcha.

>But you did the same thing, if implicitly. Invoking the surplus value without even explaining what it is is only one step above saying "you are wrong". You are reducing the "and here's why" to one small idea without deriving it or showing its implications. It's lazy.

Okay. Check the greentext in >>80150. Ctrl-F that thing, you'll find >>80141. It is not the only one.

We'll start with the simple irony that, on a centrist imageboard (yup, check the sticky), devoted solely to antiauthoritarianism, we're in a thread wherein "libertarians" discuss the need for an absolute authoritarian leader to commit fairly-random murder to assert their authority…

…and we'll gloss by the amusement of the number of people thinking the phrase "muh surplus value" is at all dependent on whether you are desperately clinging to advocating that position, when it's phrased as a memetic mockery…

…but we'll go on to the fact that it… does not at all have to be true to pull "killing ancaps just for being ancap does not violate the NAP" out of >>80141. Think of all the religious wars ever fought; it is impossible that all the combatants were right.

No, all one needs is what >>80141 provided. "I just like to kill, the cheapest of unsubstantiated excuses will do." It works perfectly fine that way, and like religious wars, who is right in a game of "nuh-uh/uh-huh" does not actually affect the proposition worth a damn.

It is pretext enough that >>80141 is advocating killing ancaps for existing, and that is enough.

My personal bet is that this is because the murder-worshippers are spouting specious bullshit, but it does not matter. Killing ancaps is an inherent conclusion of >>80141; the pretext, not its fact, is enough.

In leftist theory, the thought is that the profit of the employer taken from the work of the workers is theft, not because they are an employer, but because their habit of profiting thereby is the source of anticompetition laws, such as the flagrant illegality of spreading a blanket in the park and simply buying and selling in most jurisdictions. This chain of thought goes back at least to Smith, and was central to his work.

Many vulgar "free marketeers" will gladly support market regulation to prevent competition. They tend to hang out with the gratuitous murder crowd.

>80158

>I am talking to you.

Then this is easy

>By the argument of the helicopterfags, the property rights of commies don't have to be respected {because of} a notion they won't accept in the first place.

Yup.

Ergo, what we have here is…

>you can't think except in the terms of your own system.

;)

The bullshit is, at least, just a LITTLE more symmetrical than you can concieve… trapped within your own system. Surplus value itself, for instance, is a notion of property rights, and an observation that they are being violated which Smith wrote about at length…

What the… an-syn, mostly, but a bit of everybody, won't accept is that they have no notion of property rights, while what the helicopter crowd won't accept is that the property rights of lowly workers matter… especially when they're bitching about them being violated.

Marxists, otoh, demonstrably ARE helicopterfags, and can fuck off. ;)

>>80131

>It's hard to take an appeal to "fair trial" from a Communist

maybe you should reply to arguments and not flags?

I know it doesn't occur to most users on this board, but if they could rise above nigger-tier logic they'd realize that defending liberty requires not violating it at the same time. It's just typical sports-fan politics where an ideology is little more than a flag or a slogan and the substance matters not. Pinochet was a bureaucrat with a gun who organized other bureaucrats to overthrow a democratically elected government and massacre people. The initial plan on part of the junta was a temporary

> It's just typical sports-fan politics where an ideology is little more than a flag or a slogan and the substance matters not.

This.

>>80194

I don't see how your attack is remotely relevant. The point is, commies should not cry wolf. Throughout their history, they have shown an aversion to fighting fair, remaining truthful, and respecting due process. This isn't by random accident, but because it's both built into most of their ideologies and because their ideologies are designed to appeal to base instincts that don't leave much room for honor and justice.

Does that mean that no communist ever had honor? No, some did, and while they are the exception, they're no less honorable. Does it make communists subhuman? Again, no, you can't lose your humanity, you can only act like you did. Does it mean that I will shed fewer tears over dead communists than other dead people? Absolutely, for the same reason that I will not be as shocked or saddened over the deaths of gang members.

>>80201

>for the same reason that I will not be as shocked or saddened over the deaths of gang members.

>set-tripping in a thread entirely about truly-seneless set-banging.

Wew lad.

We agree on one thing; I do not shed as many tears when the more antisocially-inclined of gang members gets the fruits of the world they put out into the universe.

If you'll check what thread you're in, that means banging on a gold rag. And somewhere, there's some son of a bitch who isn't laughing at the deaths of neighboring gangs; that person is the real person you're trying to get killed with this thread.

>>80203

>capitalism

>philosophy of natural growth and advancement through conducting mutually beneficial trade deals

>comes about naturally because the free market is the most efficient and equitable method of distributing resources

>completely self-contained and internally consistent system

<communism

<philosophy of envy, advancement comes only through stealing the wealth of the "bourgeoisie"

<only comes about through violent revolution, because its tenets are a revolt against nature; only possible through a charismatic demagogue whipping the masses into a covetous frenzy to eat the rich

<inherently parasitic system, Marx himself said the revolution can't happen until capitalism builds up an industrialized society

Yeah, the commies are really looking more honorable so far. Commie or commie-sympathetic attitudes are quite firmly entrenched in both the public school system and Hollywood. Commies riot to stop speakers they don't like from visiting universities, in essence holding cities hostage through the threat of violence. They openly call for physical assault against anyone they deem a "one percenter" or "Nazi," and are generally allowed to do so even by conservatives, recognizing their right to free speech on public property. In turn, the commies in control of universities ban sentiment contrary to their sensibilities as "hate speech," and wrest control of the language through the label of political correctness, allowing them to label certain terms as progressive and others as offensive and taboo, taking control of the narrative and quite literally ensuring their opponents are speaking on fair terms.

Yeah, you're right. Commies are definitely the honorable ones here. Go choke on a gangrenous cock, bolshevik scum.

>>80206

where's social democracy in that image?

>>80207

Probably the "socially responsible" one.

>>80201

Due process isn't some courtesy you extend to people you like, it's something done to avoid imprisoning and executing innocent people.

Am I the only one here who wonders, "Hm, were those thousands of people disappeared by a self-appointed military junta REALLY all terrorists and subversives?"

Was it REALLY necessary to kill a self-exiled former general with a car bomb, simply because he had opposed an attempted coup against the Allende government?

>>80206

>requires a state

a state is by definition a violation of private property, to the extent that there is a state is the extent that it isnt capitalist

>>80209

>You can have the 'opinion' that the earth is flat, doesn't make you correct.

…but you're still dead, so wgaf?

>those whose whole ideology is little else but a justification for theft

>>80218

>cops

>you can own me

both elements of authotitarian ideologies like socialism not anarchic ones like capitalism you are projecting

>>80219

>just making up random shit

We are all Shanti Sena, now….

>>80209

>you bring up the fact that idea of the Labor Theory of value

Nope. See >>80157

>the gotcha cry of any marxist on the internet

See >>80162 - namely :

>I loathe Marx.

>The value of an item doesn't come from it's cost

Also >>80162

>"value" was essentially another word for "cost," functionally, in the early economic thought

Or >>80163

>It really, really helps to think of "value" as two different words depending on where you are in the time stream. (etc)

This is called "reading for comprehension."

>>80222

>Somehow maintain economic system?

Umm, yup.

>>80226

You make a good point.

Say, you wouldn't happen to have a couple pages of "this is what cops do when you go on strike" links, possibly from around 1850-1930s, by any chance?

>>80227

>You brought it up.

>No, actually, I didn't.

>Waaah!

Rly, d00d?

>>80229

> d00d

Oh that explains it, I didn't know reddit was visiting /liberty/, silly me.

>>80230

Judging by your posts to date, it would be an improvement.

>>80218

Police do not enforce a system of voluntary transactions. That would be a contradiction. In fact, cops hinder capitalism by violating property rights (e.g. "probable cause" searches, no-knock warrants, civil forfeiture, etc.).

>>80278

>the proletariat wants communism

>communism never happens

You have to concede at some point that the common working man knows better than you what he wants and what is in his own self interest

>>80258

>Police do not enforce the capital of the shopkeep.

Most stop reading there.

> In fact, cops hinder agorism and market socialism by

Mostly enforcing the capital of the shopkeep to enforce a dichotomy on the basis of…

…police-backed capital. The capital of a shop, when a rug will do.

There is a god-damn lot of "police-backed capitalism" in case your free market theory missed that.

Fiat printing is also a police-backed capitalism; even if you owned a printing shop… you wouldn't want to download a fiat munee, would you? :)

>>80286

>barter

>>80280

Let me put some communism out on the lawn and see what happens…

>>80290

more like the cheap credit bubble

>>80290

There is no such thing as the bourgeois. That's why it will never be overthrown. What will be overthrown is the central government and in doing so the perceived bourgeois will evaporate. We are all the proletariat and we are all capitalists, and what you think of as the elite are those among us who recognize this truth and properly allocate their labor where it belongs.

>>80297

This.

>>80329

>implying communists followed any of what Jesus said instead of being general jerks

>>80329

Damn heretics tbh. If you read Mark 10:21-25 carefully, you will see that it is about voluntarily giving to charity, not about actively robbing the rich because they just suck so much. Otherwise, Jesus and His disciples would've just robbed the rich man on the spot, but apparently, He didn't think it proper to do so. Nor did He ever say anything against wage labor, property rights, or interest. What He did say was that we shouldn't let money stand in the way of salvation. Notice how He so obviously challenged the rich man, making him and everyone else realize that he cared too much for his riches to be a disciple.

And if you read the whole New Testament carefully, you will see that Jesus made extensive use of hyperbole and context. He was even asked by His apostles about His use of parables, instead of plain language. So, to take everything He said at face value is silly. Not just silly, stupid.

Also, Luke 19:1-10:

>Jesus entered Jericho and made his way through the town. 2 There was a man there named Zacchaeus. He was the chief tax collector in the region, and he had become very rich. 3 He tried to get a look at Jesus, but he was too short to see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree beside the road, for Jesus was going to pass that way.

>5 When Jesus came by, he looked up at Zacchaeus and called him by name. “Zacchaeus!” he said. “Quick, come down! I must be a guest in your home today.”

>6 Zacchaeus quickly climbed down and took Jesus to his house in great excitement and joy. 7 But the people were displeased. “He has gone to be the guest of a notorious sinner,” they grumbled.

>8 Meanwhile, Zacchaeus stood before the Lord and said, “I will give half my wealth to the poor, Lord, and if I have cheated people on their taxes, I will give them back four times as much!”

>9 Jesus responded, “Salvation has come to this home today, for this man has shown himself to be a true son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man[a] came to seek and save those who are lost.”

>>80343

>you're literally killing me by not just giving me stuff for free

Is the latest model of iphone a fundamental human right?

>>80334

> it is about voluntarily giving to charity

No, that book is about giving away all your material posessions, and wandering the earth without property.

>not about actively robbing the rich because they just suck so much.

No, there are pages after pages of that in that book; it's an entire category. They're called woes.

>Otherwise, Jesus and His disciples would've just robbed the rich man on the spot

It mostly involve bitching at them, and punching them out of the temple.

>Nor did He ever say anything against wage labor, property rights,

Honestly he probably did. Not checking.

>or interest.

DUDE WAS A NONPREJUDICED JEW :cough:

Quit your day job.

>>80379

bots without thread links

>>80334

>because Jesus teaches you to go own a giant corporation and rake in billions of dollars which you will use to buy shit for yourself

Yeah, no. No matter how much you justify it, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for an ancap to fit his fat ass into the kingdom of heaven. You'd have to be a serious hypocrite or believe in some fake American version of Christianity to think that it isn't a socialist religion.

Give up your wealth or give up Christianity, it couldn't be clearer than that.

>>80335

>If the rich don't give enough in charity for the poor to have suitable livelihoods,I don't blame them for engaging in pre-emptive self defense through violence against the bourgeois class.

Well, good for you, but you have no Bible verses to support your opinion.

>>80391

>No, that book is about giving away all your material posessions, and wandering the earth without property.

Then explain Zacchaeus to me, the pious centurion, Philemon, or Joanna, wife of a manager of Herods estate (Luke 8:3).

>No, there are pages after pages of that in that book; it's an entire category. They're called woes.

Share some verses, then we can talk about this.

>It mostly involve bitching at them, and punching them out of the temple.

Yes, for doing money business in His Father's house. He didn't make it a regular habit to kick merchants to the curf, that was the one incident where He did just that and He explained His motivation, as recorded in John 2:16, Luke 19:46, Mark 11:17 and Matthew 21:13. It was not a hatred of money generally, for He had no qualms with the wealthy people I mentioned above.

>Honestly he probably did. Not checking.

Try reading a communist ideology into His parables, then tell me they still work with a straight face. In the Parable of the Workers in the Vinyard, property rights are presupposed. If property was illegitimate by Jesus' teachings, then the conduct of the boss would've been illegitimate and not a proper allegory for Gods grace. In the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, the validity of debt and interest is not touched upon at all, but neither is it at any other point. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants obviously invoked the wickedness of taking over property that you were entrusted with. The Parable of the Talents silently presupposes the validity of capital, for if it didn't, then the boss who punishes his unfaithful servant would be the villain, and not a proper allegory for God.

Luke 16:10-12 should also be interesting for you:

>10 “If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities. 11 And if you are untrustworthy about worldly wealth, who will trust you with the true riches of heaven? 12 And if you are not faithful with other people’s things, why should you be trusted with things of your own?

>>80393

Then you too explain Zacchaeus to me. It was right in the post you replied to. Jesus didn't demand that Zacchaeus give all his wealth to charity, and he obviously had wealth to spare. That is a plain contradiction to Mark 10 as you interpret it, but it is very easily resolved by my own interpretation. Isn't it one of the cornerstones of textual interpretation to try and resolve apparent conflicts within the text?

>>80422

>Share some verses, then we can talk about this.

Ctrl-F, "woe." They are called the woes; they take up about a third of the new testament.

>Yes, for doing money business in His Father's house.

So you're an absolutist noncreationist, then? No influence at all?

>Try reading a communist ideology into His parables, then tell me they still work with a straight face.

fiiiinnnne

>In the Parable of the Workers in the Vinyard

…In the Parable of the Vinyard, whether you are rich or whether you are poor, god created the heavens and earth as the inheritance FOR YOU.

The whole earth. Go, sell all that you have, wander the earth like a sparrow - and live in a fucking garden. we bring you the good news…

You are basically the worker in the story bitching about gods great inheritance.

>>80444

trips confirm god wanted to crash this heavenly kingdom with no survivors

>>80432

>Ctrl-F, "woe." They are called the woes; they take up about a third of the new testament.

And I checked them, and I could hardly find any that were relevant to this. I don't want to find ones that are ambiguous, then interpret them your way, then my own way. Don't be lazy.

>So you're an absolutist noncreationist, then? No influence at all?

It's obvious you had a class in this, and are now trying to showcase your knowledge. I don't know what an "absolutist noncreationist" is in this context, so I cannot respond. I only know it in the context of Genesis.

>…In the Parable of the Vinyard, whether you are rich or whether you are poor, god created the heavens and earth as the inheritance FOR YOU.

>The whole earth. Go, sell all that you have, wander the earth like a sparrow - and live in a fucking garden. we bring you the good news…

>You are basically the worker in the story bitching about gods great inheritance.

Like I said, you seem to have some formal knowledge of the Bible, but your interpretations of it are just rehearsals of what they taught you. Sounds harsh, but such is my impression. That you did not even respond to half my arguments doesn't help with this impression. Cherrypicking what you reply to is typical behavior of people who have no strong methodology, only residue knowledge.

>…In the Parable of the Vinyard, whether you are rich or whether you are poor, god created the heavens and earth as the inheritance FOR YOU.

That is true, but it does not follow from the Parable of the Vinyard. I cannot remember there being any mention of one of the workers being wealthier or poorer than the others, nor did I see that when I skimmed the Parable again. The workers only worked uneven hours yet received the same wage, which is an allegory for the Gentiles receiving salvation just like the Jews despite not worshipping God until then. Gods mercy in this is likened to the charity of a property owner, which would obviously be absurd if Jesus had in mind that the property owner is an unfair oppressor. Here are the verses:

>13 “He answered one of them, ‘Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? 14 Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. 15 Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?’

You haven't responded to this at all, I dare say.

>>80450

> I could hardly find any that were relevant to this.

There is not a one that is not about grasping after money, power, and social status.

The one overriding theme of the four books of the new testament is that worldly holiness is corrupt. Doesn't matter if it's money, politics, priesthood for show, or something else, but no, you do not get to take money out and claim that this method of unholiness is holy.

He ALSO singled out money, itself, for special opprobrium later… but again, it's just a means.

> I don't know what an "absolutist noncreationist" is in this context

You're in your Father's house.

> I cannot remember there being any mention of one of the workers being wealthier or poorer than the others, nor did I see that when I skimmed the Parable again. The workers only worked uneven hours yet received the same wage

"But I worked HARD to rob, extort, or steal more of Creation than everyone else what do you mean we have done away with this and share Creation freely as we wander the earth CHRISTIANITY IS THEFT WAAAAH!!!"

>The workers only worked uneven hours yet received the same wage

>>80456

>The one overriding theme of the four books of the new testament is that worldly holiness is corrupt. Doesn't matter if it's money, politics, priesthood for show, or something else, but no, you do not get to take money out and claim that this method of unholiness is holy.

Money is neutral, it is neither holy nor unholy. Investing it wisely is good, giving to charity is even better, while lusting after it, clinging to it and hoarding it for no reason is bad. I'm an anarchocapitalist, not an objectivist. I wouldn't put a dollar sign in the central square.

>You're in your Father's house.

Oh, that. Yes, I do think that churches are the houses of God, and that money and other temporal things should be kept out of them.

>"But I worked HARD to rob, extort, or steal more of Creation than everyone else what do you mean we have done away with this and share Creation freely as we wander the earth CHRISTIANITY IS THEFT WAAAAH!!!"

There is no mention of everyone receiving the same share of creation anywhere in the New Testament. Notice how Philemon was asked to take Onesimus in - asked by an apostle, not even directly ordered - but not to divide his household and give Onesimus one half of it.

Also, I would appreciate if you could engage me properly, instead of putting words into my mouth. Days are short and I would rather not waste mine with childishness.

>>80194

>maybe you should reply to arguments and not flags?

<time to voluntarily set a flag to show I'm the one ideology more retarded than anarcho-capitalism

<why is everyone incorporating my voluntary choice to identify as a communist into their responses to me?

Also, he isn't wrong in the slightest about communists leveraging mob rule and old-fashioned trickery to make every fair trial into a show trial. It's why you dodged the claim, complained about your flag being targeted, then threw a tantrum and called everyone who isn't a communist a retard.

>Money is neutral

You cannot serve two masters.

>Yes, I do think that churches are the houses of God

They were built by man; render unto Caesar. The house of the Father is the one He made.

>There is no mention of everyone receiving the same share of creation anywhere in the New Testament.

…well, there's the parable of the workers…

>2 millennia

Fucking newfags, showing up after the commies…

>>80501

>villiage idiot thinks voluntary trade for mutual benefit is in any way communistic

>>80456

> four books of the new testament

>four

>what are acts, the epistles, and revelation

you mean the gospels you dip.