Quick question for the libertarians/"freedom lovers" of Jow Forums, why are you not a leftist...

Imposted freedoms aren't truly freedoms. Im no lolbertarian, but they want the markets to give and takefreedoms, not the state.

Attached: 1533940088900m.jpg (1024x933, 87K)

>What makes you think I want to ban anything?
that's a good point, I default assumed you were authoritarian, my b-
>Do you not support anything that redistributes wealth in any way? Would you prefer living in the industrial revolution? Without any redistributary measures, capitalism puts more and more people at the bottom, and theres nothing more restrictive than being stuck at 0 in a heavily capitalist system.

oh boy.

>Let me bullshit and play dumb

How about you get serious and tell me all the reasons you don't like national socialism.

>not all leftists are authoritarian
The ones in charge always are, though.

Attached: 1531495955868.jpg (783x1024, 97K)

Government is inherently evil

Shall not be infringed nigger

Attached: 22221661_329230550883081_4673275347081280556_n.jpg (700x684, 46K)

>Trusting the state

Come on now.

youtu.be/0QD75lUm51s

Attached: socialism.png (1200x1200, 276K)

Do you think redistribution has to come through restrictions? My whole point is that stopping the gradual hoarding of wealth will ultimately make everyone more free.
Because I'm not an authoritarian and dont believe that race is the most important foundation of a nation. Also, national socialism is a notoriously vague ideology economically, there isnt much substance to it outside of its overtly authoritarian civic order.
This could be said for every system, so how about we make sure no one person is in charge, or we put heavy restrictions on what the person in charge is allowed to do?

Nobody here cares or believes in equality. All your ideology has done is idolize the traditional male role in society and encourage woman to abandon their necessary duty to become more like men. Men and women are different. Society and its “oppressive” traditions don’t just emerge from the void bereft of reason. Instead, societies are akin to a large biological entities and are subject to evolutionary forces. Traditions and cultures which lead to prosperous societies reproduce through conquest or imitation by others. Less prosperous societies are less likely to conquer other societies or purvey their ideas. There is a reason why all prosperous societies had somewhat similar patriarchal structures during their ascendency; it’s what works. It’s what best allows societies to move out of poverty and into the realm of prosperity where they can eventually entertain notions of “equality” and abandon the traditions and cultural elements that allowed for their ascendancy in the first place - this process of cultural abandonment is best understood by people in the modern day as liberalism. Hard times create strong men; Strong men create good times; Good times create weak men; Weak men create hard times. All societies eventually degenerate. History is largely cyclical.

STOP LISTENING TO WOMEN OR ELSE WE DIE

well ironically the more freedom people have the more strictly they abide by gender roles

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

so Real Feminism™ would have the vast majority of women being homemakers since that's what they want to do and they only work when they financially have to lmao

Based women

>My whole point is that stopping the gradual hoarding of wealth will ultimately make everyone more free.
What about the people who CONTROL the money supply? Are you just going to be willfully ignorant of their role in "muh wealth inequality"?

Except that you lie.
You,claim to want freedom for all, but then you start talling about things like "white privilege" and tell,me that I need to sacrifice some of my freedom in the name of equality.
Why should I suffer for the sake of people I dont know to make up for crimes I never committed?
And then when I ask this question you attack me.
It is very obvious by your actions that you have no interest in equality.
No, what you want is me enslaved.
You want me working to provide for you and your friends.
You want me to waste my life away as a miserable work horse so that you can enjoy the benefits of my labor.
All the nazis want is for me to have pride in myself, and to understand that I deserve better.
I hate all of you authoritarians, but if forced to choose, I choose the fascists

No. I'd be fine with having no currency or a peer 2 peer system like Bitcoin

Redistribution occurs naturally through the poor decisions of those unfit to wield the wealth they possess.
Capitalism rewards strength, and so the strongest will always rise to the top in a capitalist system.
None of your principles matter if you dont produce anything of value.

Sure. S U R E. Left love THEIR freedom and force others to become their. That’s why they’re disgusting.

Socialism encourages laziness as more income is a diminishing return, therefore wealth redistribution is ultimately self-defeating, especially in a country with different ethnic and cultural makeups such as the US.

Social liberalism is inherently wrong on the subject of which behavior patterns are compatible with financial success and personal/moral stability. That is to say, social liberals think success and stability are achieved subjectively. There is a proven formula of actions and mindset that result in success.

First off freedom is an illusion. You need to tear that bandaid off once and for all.
Second you don't want freedom. All your kind has ever wanted is control over your fellow man. You bring chaos and call it freedom all while wearing a false guise of altruism. I could almost consider you respectable if you had the decency to live out your pointless lives alone but you are unsatisfied with that. You have a need to spread your hedonism driven lifestyle in an effort to justify it as right, because only if everyone falls in line with your evil then you will become good. So you seek to destroy everyone that doesn't believe in your nonsense.

Attached: 1505008159089.jpg (607x558, 74K)

Left is authoritarian when it comes to economics. That's literally the definition of being left.

Its absolutely fine if women want to act traditionally feminine, the whole point is that they don't have to. The reason why feminists want women to "act like men" is because women need to have some handle on their own finances, otherwise they become slaves to the head of the house and, once again, are not truly free

>Strongest

Attached: 1506346479642.gif (155x173, 948K)

Why do you pretend that capitalism = pure meritocracy. That may be true for a single generation, but what happens after? People who have not earned their way are given a head start and others are held back, regardless of ability. This also gets worse over time, with fewer and fewer people holding more and more of the total wealth (see: Pareto distribution)

>My whole point is that stopping the gradual hoarding of wealth will ultimately make everyone more free
Like a typical communist, you assume that wealth is finite.
Something that the rich have taken and now hoard.
You have no concept of the creation of wealth, so of course it would seem,logical to you that wealth must be distributed evenly.
What you fail to understand is that wealth is created through labor, and destroyed through consumption.
This is why siezing the means of production fails to increase productivity and improve standard of life.
You may be able to claim a large quantity of wealth, but without the administrative systems the beorgois created you are unable to capitalize on the redistributed wealth.
As a result, the wealth slowly dwindles with time.
the machinery falls into disrepair.
Eventually people return to the same standard of living because it is what they are able to maintain based on the wealth they produce.
The difference is that now all of your industrialists, inventors, and business men have all been killed or fled to another country.
Communism is not an ideology, it is a disease.

Please go fuck yourself with a cactus, O.P.

It actually is not the definition of being left.
Left = rejecting hierarchy
Right = demanding hierarchy
Economic models that lead to redistribution are possible without regulation

Do you know why is it that wealthy persons' children usually continue to be more successful than their peers?

>What you fail to understand is that wealth is created through labor
That is actually exactly how communists understand value lmao

idisease.i dont pretend that it,is purely meritocratic, in fact in the post you quoted I point out how people can inherit fortunes who do not deserve them.
However a person who does not possess the skills to capitalize on their wealth and produce more wealth will find their wealth drain away from them

Better schools, better nutrition, nepotism, etc.
>inb4 genes
IQ does not correlate THAT well with success, also regression to the mean

Economics without regulation is capitalism.

Then why do you believe you,can "redistribute" anything.
You,cannot redistribute innitiative and skill which are the sources of all wealth

Really? What about the descendants of tycoons from the late 1800s who are still living off the money of their forefathers? Also, access to more capital will make it far easier for you to succeed in the future. You need money to make money.

Thats just blatantly false

False, no restictions is a subtype of capitalism known as anarcho capitalism.
However given the context it seem,more,likely that you were implying lassez faire capitalism

Its not the only system without regulation, and there are plenty of capitalists who are not opposed to some regulation

Name one

What is false? That skills cannot be redistributed? Or that innitiative cannot be redistributed?

Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, etc.

That those are the sources of all wealth

>Because I'm not an authoritarian
Then change your flag dummy. How do you think this hypothetical classless society is supposed to come about? Violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>dont believe that race is the most important foundation of a nation.
Then start your dumb commune in Africa.
Also, way to sidestep the more fundamental question about the role of blood, soil, and tradition in a society. Does a person's flesh and homeland play a role in formulating their identity? If you say no, you're wrong, and if you say yes, then you're in the wrong ideology.
>Also, national socialism is a notoriously vague ideology economically, there isnt much substance to it outside of its overtly authoritarian civic order.
The NSDAP was overtly authoritarian because welcome to Germany. A national socialist civic order could be organized in some other manner if it were more fitting to the volk. What's important is that the people are unified in building a bridge from the past into the future.
As for economics, it raised the status of the worker and built a robust economy. What more do you want?

Correct, they are better educated on subjects of value. That is why leftism cannot be sustainable. If you tell children that everyone is equal and that inequality is bad, they will never learn how to strive to be the best, and will never attempt to become successful themselves, as success inevitably creates inequality.

Sure, I suppose capitalism is a spectrum, but it's still a spectrum whose core is no regulations. Some regulations can still be capitalism, but it's less-pure capitalism.

Communists are retards that don't understand that after they institute their revolution they will automatically return to a system of hierarchical power. The bureaucracy will become corrupt because of human psychology and will eventually treat their workers as slaves for their own profit.
Capitalism is the most effective economic method we have thought of thus far, especially when the sociopolitical structure remains somewhere near the center.
Communism is far left and just as far right politics breeds extremism, so does communism.

>breaking from the conventionally established roles society places on gender
string free individual do not care for conventionally established roles
>society places
society can kiss my ass
you're a victim-mentality "society owns me" commie scum

Attached: commie prevention.jpg (600x600, 57K)

Then frome whence does wealth come?
Did create a finite amount at thw beginning of creation?
This is the problem I have with you socialists.
You,never want to,make anything for yourselves.
You,only,ever want to take something somebody else made

Which is why leftists want everyone to have access to education. Why should some have access to it and others not?

>when I dictate to you what pronouns you will refer to me by or lose your job, that's freedom!

kys

>Quick question for the libertarians/"freedom lovers" of Jow Forums, why are you not a leftist?
Unless you're an anarchist, leftist beliefs nigh universally involve co-opting the state to violently extort from people and to sanction non-violent voluntary associations.

I don't want that. I will never want that. I should never want that.

Because some people dont deserve an education.
If one guy in high school studies hard and does all homework and gets good grades, but another kid skips class,and smokes weed all day.
Do both of those people have the same,right to,an education paid for,by the state?
Or does,it,make more,sense to focus those resources on the person most likely to capitalize on them?

>Everyone else just uses books to cut costs on their heating bill.

>Left want to redistribute wealth
>Hate it when parents buy or hand down cars, land, property, jobs, and education to their kids, the only method of redistributing wealth that actually helps
Why do they hate success, and having others, specifically family, benefit from that success? Is there an actual downside to handing down fortunes to children? inb4 "they won't learn the value of work/money"

Attached: 1404425203952.jpg (435x571, 27K)

you can't be a leftist / socialist without forcing "equality" you stupid fuck

This, this was a deal breaker before we even start discussing policy.
Everything else is just philosophical masturbation at this point

>Why should some have access to it and others not?
Because other people provision that access at their own discretion, and the time of those other people is scarce.
You have the internet - it's a better resource than any human teacher has ever been ever.

>communism
>authoritarian
read Marx. Also there have been multiple communist movements in Africa.
>Does a person's flesh and homeland play a role in formulating their identity?
Homeland, yes but only because of culture. Race is not as important as you may think. "White" was only unifying in America and really came out of colonialism. Even today europeans identify along ethnic lines more than they do racially. Religion and ethnicity have divided people in the past as well. Also, class is the ultimate identity.
You basically just agreed with me lol
Do you honestly not know that trust funds exist?

I said subjects of value, which are not currently taught in developmental (pre-adult) schools, only in college. Even then, the only valuable college course that is applicable in every aspect of life is finance.

Children need to be taught critical thinking, mental fortitude, accountability, all subjects better taught through action rather than classroom.

And where did the money in those trust funds come from?
Did god put it there at the beginning of time?

Show us one person in the world who wants to make others not have access to education and you will have showed us someone who is a complete authoritarian.

Go read a book you dirty hippy. pic related
Oh, and do a phlip phag.

Attached: won.jpg (474x617, 62K)

It’s sad you believe such bullshit where you obsess and envy everything that somebody else has.

Do you believe all rich kids are good students and all poor kids would be bad ones?
There is a difference between wanting everyone to have access to the same standards of living and allowing wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few.
What about workplace democracy? Is that violent?

You stupid liberals literally want all borders wide open, all Muslims imported, all guns banned, all money shared, and are trying to normalize pedophilia. Go move to China and fuck off there

>politics is ATLEAST 2-dimensional right?
Is that why communist countries have historically killed anyone that didn't support them during their hostile take over of a country? Yea thats some 2 dimensional politics all right.

Attached: 40b.jpg (600x623, 28K)

It certainly wasn't earned by those receiving it.
How do you ensure the children of coal miners and factory workers get an education without taking money from some (taxation) and using it to pay for schools (redistribution)

>What about workplace democracy?
If you take other people's property, yes. Theft is violent. Just because you use someone else's forklift - that he already pays you to use, and that you agreed to use in return for that payment, since you're selling your labor - never does that forklift magically cease to be his property and magically become yours. You can have whatever cooperatives you want, and organize them - voluntarily - however you want, but you do not have any moral license at any time ever to take people's property because YOU think that them having it and other people using it is somehow wrong (it's not in the least).

No, but again those who do not deserve their wealth will squander it.
The rich kids who got in on daddys money alone will,spend their time drinking and getting stoned.
When they enter the workforce their incompetence will either get them,fired, or cause their business to fail.
Meanwhile, the ones who study hard to be competitive will go on to join companies and help them,excel.
Or for the truly,ambitious they will create their own companies that will displace more outdated and inefficient corporations.
Capitalism is survival of the fittest.
If You,cannot use the resources at your disposal then you will fail,and be overtaken by someone more capable than you.
This is why most communists are communists, they are unable to compete on a fair playing field.

Before you were just wanting them to have access to an education. Now you're wanting to force them to get an education?

Keep trying to claim that you're not an authoritarian, though. I'm sure no one will see through it.

>How do you ensure the children of coal miners and factory workers get an education
Teach them.

And why does that bother you so,much?
Do you feel that you deserve it,more?
I have news for you, that is not high morality, it is basic greed.

Because modern libertarians are conservatives who love the idea of the free market so much they base their entire identity around it.

Talk to most lolbertarians and they will tell you how much they personally hate degenerates and typical social liberals, but their burning hatred for the government overcomes all.

Some people have the IQ to be capable of hating something without wanting to ban that something.

>Because modern libertarians are conservatives
There are plenty of these people and they're not conservatives in the least.
c4ss.org/

Its not a hatred for the government.
It is a rigid understanding of,moral authority and human rights.
The government, being made of people, is not suited to pass judgment on the actions of others.
However as individuals we are capable of,passing judgement on other individuals as to whether that individual is harmful or beneficial to us individually.
Society works best when everyone acts toward their own logical self interest.
Selfishness is a virtue,

>coal miners and factory workers

The far left doesn't seem capable of moving itself past 1848. When the ideas were made the reforms they demanded were justified, but its a different world and for progressives the left seems remarkably stubborn to adapt their ideas. Modern workers have rights, in our countries going without work isn't a death sentence, we already have welfare and subsidies.

Leftism used to be about free speech, now it's about illegal immigrants ( voter base) and faggots. Nobody cares / thread

You cant /thread your own post newfag

I think we broke OP.
He is probably having an existential crisis right now lol

>Selfishness is a virtue
You should stop using that language Yaron - the only people who don't take a kind of visceral, knee-jerk offense to that phrase are people who will take the time to unwrap what it is you actually mean by it. Which is not most people at all.
It's very unhelpful language.

Thank you. Thread should have ended right around here.

Sage & hide

Attached: 1530489656839.gif (235x240, 1.93M)

Fair enough,
Tbh I was trying to trigger OP.

>read Marx.
No u. He condones violent revolution, and Lenin was in favor of a vanguard setting up a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Supposedly this government is a temporary measure, but not a single DoP has made the transition in 90 years. Funnily enough, they all get stuck at the whole "dictatorship" thing.
> Race is not as important as you may think.
Right, because natural selection is a thing, intelligence, behavior, and personality are all heritable to a degree (as high as 70% within the US by official numbers), humans have lived in radically different environments for tens of thousands of years, and all display profoundly different physical traits (such as skull size) which tightly correlate with geographic distribution...
but none of this matters. Its all arbitrary cultural distinctions which arose from environmental differences, environmental differences which despite crafting the culture had no effect on the evolution of cognitive patterns despite creating differences in physical features as deep as bone structure.
Seems legit.
>Even today europeans identify along ethnic lines more than they do racially.
Within Europe, because Europeans are of the same race. Take a Brit, a Kraut, and a Baguette on a Safari into Kenya, and they're going to start understanding the importance of race pretty quickly (which is exactly what happened historically). Racial consciousness is very relevant in a world with frequent interactions between people of different racial groups.
>Religion and ethnicity have divided people in the past as well.
Same point.
>class is the ultimate identity.
Cool assertion, too bad its wrong.

In truth libertarian principles are just common sense, but at the same time it's used as a shield for those without the moral conviction to take action.

Most Libertarians in America will label abortion as child murder but because of their ridiculous ideological purity would never act upon those beliefs.

What exactly do you expect those who label abortion as murder to do? Do you want them to become vigilantes? And if they don't, they're somehow hypocrites?

Head on over to entry level political chitchat.

If another person wishes to handicap their own genetics by killing their unborn children, why would I try to stop them?
In a purely darwinian context abortion helps me because I dont intend intend to abort my child.
As a result, the more abortions the less,competition my child faces, the better their chances of being sucessful
The "white race" is a meme

I don't care what you do with your hellspawn, just don't make anyone else pay for your mistakes.

Idunno, gotta nuke something fag.

It's not common sense for people to refrain from engaging in activities that benefit them more than they cost them. A cop who tickets a guy for something ridiculously trivial because he didn't like that person's shirt is not acting irrationally or without common sense, since he feels better by doing something cruel to that other person.

Also I have no idea what you think you can possibly do about abortion, given unless you're going to lock women up and tube-feed them whenever they get pregnant until the baby is born, nothing can prevent women from murdering their own children.

Freedom requires responsibility and consequences. Like if you don't work, you don't eat.