abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm still not leaving bro, sorry to disappoint you, I like it here.
Layoffs coming...
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
still not talking about whether you "collectivized" your buds.
but then "collectivization" is only for people who have more than you right?
yeah. thought as much.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I share. I actually went out in the rain yesterday and gave away 7 hoodie sweaters with 100 peso notes in the pockets. I walk the talk.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Oh wow... "He did descend from heaven and appeared to 7...in the rain."
You should write a book, people believe in Scientology so there's obviously a market for bullshit sky-daddies.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
All I would write is that I felt much more of a sense of warmth from giving sweaters away than I could from wearing one. I wish I could share that, but I can't, it is something that must be experienced to know.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I don't believe it's really charity if you use it to pontificate how much better you are than everyone else.
I give to charity privately and don't feel the need to disclose the exact details online looking for kudos.
But cool story bro.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Actually he asked.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
"True libertarians must embrace discrimination ... Indeed, private property means discrimination. I, not you, own such and such. I am entitled to exclude you from my property. I may attach conditions to your using my property, and I may expel you from my property."
~Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"Therefore we must conclude that we are not really anarchists"
~Murray Rothbard
~Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"Therefore we must conclude that we are not really anarchists"
~Murray Rothbard
You must of misread my statement. My statement said there are 2 ways to get to society taking care of itself without government interference as a current state: 1) Libertarian government in which people are allowed to decide what they want and the people decide to live as socialists. IE: the owners give up their ownership to society without coercion. and 2) Socialist government which force implements socialism and then the decide that they want to be socialists and remove the forceful part and continue as socialists. IE: the owners have their ownership forcefully taken and then come to accept that it was for the best.(Or alternatively they are simply murdered and everyone accepts this) It seems to me that if you espouse freedom, dignity, and the the like that the second is not an acceptable way.
Unless you can explain a different way to get to stateless socialism that I haven't listed.
Capitalism isn't the government granted monopolies and abuse that you see today - you seem to equate the two. If you can accept that socialism as an economy isn't socialism as a government then you must accept capitalism in the same way. If everyone miraculously agreed to be socialists without government force, then it would work. Capitalism would work in the same way. The ideology you are talking about has more to do with everyone working towards the same goal than it does anything else.
In Libertarian Socialism is there still welfare and the like? If your labor is your private property, which seems to be what you suggest, and taking it from you is wrong(when the boss does it to make a profit), then it must also be wrong to take your labor to give it to other people without your consent. What would be the consequences for not giving up parts of your labor to people who didn't have jobs or who weren't as good at their jobs? Does everyone make the same wages?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
those pesos were minted by the mexican central bank, you certainly cant claim any lefty charity credit for sharing the wealth of nations with the people who's nation it already is. shit, since you had those pesos, you probably stole them from some hard working peasant by hoarding your dirty gringo wealth which you gained as a participant of the most greedy and selfish corrupt racist economic regime in history.
and those sweaters were already the rightful property of the "collective" anyhow.
Unless you grew the cotton yourself, harvested it with your own hands, turned it into yarn on a treadle powered spinning wheel, then knitted those hoodies yourself, "You didnt build that"
He is stating how it would be in real life. I understand your theory, I just don't see everyone willingly being part of the society. Do you see the big business people giving up their businesses to society willingly?
Agreed. You know the difference between driving a car that has a good transmission and a eh one? Driving a car with a 6 speed automatic vs a 3 speed automatic for instance. You pay more for the 6 speed, but your car performs better. Labor, Management, ect are the same way. If you do your research, get a transmission that seems to be doing good on the market, and pay the price to get it, you can have a superior car. CEOs are the same way.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Please go on about Marxism kynes. This interesting stuff you're pushing. Any other ideas you want to assign to me? Or are you just going to insist another 20 times that I am something I say I'm not? Who is paying you to follow me around and troll me?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
really, im following you?
most of the threads you start are the same old crap, anarcho-_____ism will save the world... anarcho-__________ism is the only way... anarcho-___________ism will destroy monopolies...
your lurking this thread and GETTING POUNDED by your own reluctance to examine your own "philosophy".
youre not getting trolled youre getting schooled.
again i say, read the communist manifesto and das kapital. youll shit yourself, or you already know what they say and your lying trying to sell marxism light, new marxism,, crystal marxism and caffeine free diet marxism. next up: cherry marxism or marxism Zero.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Kynes, I have explained my philosophy, you misinterpret my arguments and come back with strawmen and red herrings and falsely attribute views to me which I repeatedly denounce. I link wikipedia of my philosophy, even in my sig and you come back insisting wikipedia is faulty. I have explained it Kynes, repeatedly, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. I reported you for harassment. I'm not a Marxist. I am not pushing state socialism. Get it through your head. You have ruined this site for me, instead of coming here to debate, like I was with carthoris, I have you repeating the same shit over and over. You have presented not a single cogent argument. You have relied on distortions and have attributed views falsely to me in order to give the appearance that I have been "pounded". Nobody is fooled Kynes, you are foaming at the mouth because the word socialist isn't popular.
Let's see how long your philosophy lasts. I won't have to resort to any of those tactics to expose you for the idiot you are.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
wikipedia is not a source nor does that page define "libertarian socialism" it simply describes what "libertarian socialism" is NOT. you know this, anyone who wasted half an hour reading that garbage knows it, and even the other proponents of this "philosphy" know it. it is not a philosophy, its a delusional fantasy with no framework, no logic and no internal consistency.
even the mighty Noam Chomsky doesnt define the ideals or the systems of this sad little reject from the lysander spooner collection of first drafts and rough outlines. picking through the rubbish bin of a failed and nearly forgotten 19th century fringe kook doesnt make for a philosophy, any more than changing the color of the dust jacket on Mao's little red book of "Quotations From The Chairman" to blue makes maoism a hot new idea.
canndo
Well-Known Member
but not employees, right? If I get you right you believe in a continual arc here - so if I pay 20k for a car it is a better car, if I pay 40k it is better yet, if I pay 100k better still and so on. So If I pay 90 million a year I should get a CEO that is twice as good as the one I got for 45 million right? It doesn't work that way. There is a limit and that limit is established by a current market and that current market is maintained by board of directors - that friends of the CEOs are on, in fact the CEOs are on different boards who all give themselves raises over and over again - it has little any more to do with performance at all.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I've stayed out of this argument because i really don't know...
But if you could clear something up for me I would appreciate it. Can you describe the difference between Marx's endgame utopia and the Libertarian-Socialism endgame utopia? I'm just not seeing any.
Absolutely this includes the employees too. Look at any business that isn't run by unions and you will see that the more productive, experiences, and better workers get raises and promotions over the others. If the owners(stockholders) of the companies are happy with the performance and cost of the CEO, then what does anyone else's opinion matter? If the workers aren't forced to work there, and the consumers aren't forced to buy the products the company makes, and the company isn't forced to give the people jobs then I would have to say everyone is accepting the situation and what they get out of it. If you don't like it, move on.