/liberty/ - Liberty

>>94501

nope

it was made by commie to mock capitalism

>>94531

This guy is correct. Monopoly was designed by a butthurt commie who intentionally made the game as tedious, conflict-inducing, and unwinnable as possible so that he could own the pigs.

>>94532

It's not as shitty if you start the game by bidding for land. Makes it a lot better for that one unlucky fuck who lands on nothing for 3 whole rounds of the board. Negotiating trades is probably the only fun you can have with it.

It would never end. Monopoly was designed by georgists to demonstrate the concept of 'land monopoly'.

There already is a game supposedly about creating competition, called anti-monopoly (haven't played it myself). There is also Kolejka, a mildly amusing board game about shopping in 80s Poland (standing in queue all day, using tactical baby to get to the front and so on).

>>94532

>Henry George is gommunism xDD

u wot m8

>>94606

He's a land communist.

>capitalism without government

prove one instance or shut up

>>94607

So you think that when your income is determined by your own productivity… that is communism?

>>94614

>you can't implement something unless it's already been implemented before

You're not really this retarded, are you?

I also find it ironic that the same morons who claim this claim communism deserves a chance because it's "never been tried."

>>94619

That's not the communist part. The communist part is his idea that the value of land should be distributed equally throughout society, hence "land communist."

>>94620

Nope. Privatization for rent is not the part that qualifies…

>>94620

<communism is when something is distributed equally

In Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx distinguishes a lower and a higher phase of communism.

Lower phase: To each according to work.

Higher phase: To each according to need.

Which of these phases would have equal distribution?

()first

()second

()both

()neither

>>94614

Capitalism always existed, hindered by government or not, because it's just people doing voluntary trades and accumulating resources to invest in something. You're probably thinking of crony capitalism (corporatism), when big corporations lobby for government regulations to kill competition and create monopolies, and that can't exist without the state itself.

>>94607

>>94620

t. doesnt know what communism is.

>>94627

Well, the good thing about your capitalism definition is that it's concise. The bad thing about it is that it doesn't correspond to how thousands of writers have historically used the term. The old-fashioned meaning includes absentee ownership. And how could that type of ownership be protected without armed people who are distinct from the owners themselves? And these people have to live from something, so you get to taxes and a state.

>>94646

>one needs to hire someone to protect their property if they're away

>therefore the state needs to rob people to pay for it

How do you even reach that conclusion?

>>94652

A system without police or army and only decentralized security gangs for hire isn't stable, over time the stronger gangs destroy/absorb the weaker ones and then you are back to having the one gang to rule them all, AKA a state. Change my view.

>>94646

>The old-fashioned meaning includes absentee ownership.

Proof?

>>94658

Security is a service, and just like any other service it benefits from competition because that's where innovation comes from, so you can keep solving new problems. Anything that's done by the state has absolutely no incentive to change the status quo, since they can just force you to pay for it. I'm not really creative enough to speculate how it would work in practice (nor are you, if we go by your post) not that that's even possible, since it would change depending on location and culture, but as is now it can't ever work for anyone besides those in power.

All the state does is say it'll solve a certain problem (which it does not, nor does it need to) by creating other problems, and treat anyone else who tries to solve it on their own as "criminals".

It would be nice if we had more competition, so we would have more quality… You weren't asked about what would lead to quality. You weren't asked about what would be nice to happen. What happens, realistically? The claim you are "arguing against" is that small decentralized security gangs will lead, via mergers and destruction, to increasing concentration, the monopoly of using force in a region, that is a state. Evidence: The history of the birth of nations. The real world.

>>94662

100% conviction rate is suspicious. These private outsourcing of public issues are terribly corrupt that offers a profit incentive towards abuse of power.

It's like private prisons and onerous laws put Blacks and Latinx minorities into a virtually unpaid proletariat army of labor without any rights. That's where all your jerbs are going.

>>94661

The only thing that can possibly stop another state from emerging from that is the culture of defending against it, and guns. Liberty requires eternal vigilance. As long as people think the state is somehow legitimate in any form (and the ones that do not can't defend themselves) it will keep happening, as it has until now.

>>94680

There is literally not one single "public issue" that is not handled by a PRIVATE agent or agency. There is no "public agent" or "public agency".

Holy shit but then I read the rest of your post. Just die you dumb fuck.

>>94662

Britains police force, especially in London, is a fucking joke. They should feel embarassed that they are all glorified hall monitors who spend all their time arresting people for shittalking muslims on facebook or having a butter knife while rape and acid attacks and knife murders sky rocket in their city.

>>94682

>Everyone will be thinking like me so everything should be ok

>>94735

>people don't think like me so it's okay to kill them

>>94661

>Evidence: The history of the birth of nations. The real world.

You think nations just emerged organically from privately competing security forces? What evidence do you have for this?

The state didn't emerge from merging and growing security forces; it emerged from religion. When the spiritual leaders and the security producers merged their interests before a superstitious population, the population accepted the growth of violent power as the will of the divine. After the Enlightenment, the church had to morph itself and merge with the state in order to survive. This merger has, consciously or not, steadily deteriorated the masses' faith in the divine, and so respect for the abstract ideals that justify the state is crumbling. A rich and comfortable people have no use for gods, and a man with no gods needs no priest to tell him how to worship.

>>94680

>100% conviction rate is suspicious. These private outsourcing of public issues are terribly corrupt that offers a profit incentive towards abuse of power.

Afraid I have to agree here, though to be fair, it could just be that they only went after somebody if they had a rock-solid case.

>>94682

>The only thing that can possibly stop another state from emerging from that is the culture of defending against it, and guns.

Or you make it practically impossible to enforce statist policies. When money is out of the state's control, and business can be conducted without their oversight, they can spend only those bullets they have remaining, and will soon starve for lack of funding.

>>94501

Yep, which is why I've always found it very unrealistic. The idea that you're constantly and randomly assigned to rent a new place all the time is fucking ridiculous. The idea that land is limited, as monopoly teaches, isn't that ridiculous, but is still wrong.

>>95313

is not land limited?

>>95321

Both soft and hard creation of land exists, so not really. You can develop land that was effectively useless in the past to become much more valuable—you're not literally creating new land but you're increasing the supply of land in the economy, which in market terms is effectively the same thing. Or you can make like the oil kebab or the chinks, and create artificial islands and a few dozen South China Sea disputes, respectively.

>>95313

Land is limited though. Why do you think expressions like "buy land because god aint making any more of it" exist?

Also, I suggest you read Democracy in America. Its first few chapters are about land laws and its really good.