How delusional can libertarians be?

they're too young to understand..

Lavor Value Theory is totally debunked

Attached: 1530417184755.jpg (825x1195, 308K)

If blacks can be russian bears can be rabbits

The Logic ist Just fine. You volunterely agreed to gave the surplus of your labotvalue to the Entrepreneur. For giving you The Tools, spaces and coworkers needed for The Work. The taxes are taken from you. By force.

>implying market forces are a poor way to approximate the energy value of work
Money = Energy = Work, they are all the same, and our entire current problem as a species is that we are ignoring the inordinate wealth of super abundant but marginally more expensive (as an upfront cost) energy located in space, because we're too fixated on the minuscule amount of marginally short term cheaper energy here on earth

>labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker

kek what a definition. So thats why communists never get shit done.

(((your labor)))

kikes inventing shit

sage

so buying land for factory, building factory, buying machines for factory, paying electricity for machines, risking, advertising product, finding market for product and paying taxes make you deserve nothing, ha?

Actual Communists do get shit done because if you think you've reached the point of surplus labour they'll happily remind you that you can either keep working or get gulag'd. The concept of surplus labour changes from a personal idea to a collective one. For example
>I've worked enough
>But what about the rest of the people? Are you a saboteur counter revolutionary?
>The rest of the people and the state are more important than you
Etc etc

>Implying material goods have subjective value
Markets are a jewish trick

First of all the taxes make up more than half of your income, 2. of all there are such thing as necessary reinvestments that apparently dont exist in this graphic and get lumped in with „evil capitalists moneys for nothing“ 3. We have ROI after taxes of about 5-10 percent of revenue not some huge lion shares as implyied here

>tax the materials to build thing
>tax the transportation to move thing
>tax the assembly of thing
>tax the sale of thing
>tax the use of thing

>>>hurrrr why libertardians hate taxes? LMAO dont they know *snort* taxes are a small part of it? LMAO be communist!

i really hope things get bloody so i an tear u fucking subhumans apart with my bare hands.

>calls other delusional
>thinks how much you work on something is what gives it value
Marxists really are retarded

No give me all your stuff you really bad person stop just having things that i want

Reality is a Jewish trick.

No but our "reality" is

We live in an objective world not an abstract world.
Your effort has an objective worth.
Markets are supposed to be an abstract tool to most efficiently make use of that worth.
Approaching markets as the objective measure of worth is delusional.
If the market no longer serves to most efficiently make use of effort then some external intervention is necessary.
Obviously that is the case as we live in a wiemar tier society devoid of cultural achievements worth mentioning and with massive stratification of the classes

>why not entrepreneur?
That would require productive efforts that help other human beings in a genuine way.
Leftists hate making productive efforts that help other human beings in a genuine way.

Attached: silica gel-eating pepe.png (1039x559, 261K)

Digging a hole in your back yard will not increase the value of your property, no matter how much effort you put into it.

Read the first hundred pages and Man, Economy & State and you will understand how prices arise to satisfy the desires of the greatest possible number of people.

Attached: 1517411864296.png (944x755, 756K)

Yeah but digging a hole in a quarry does have value. So the effort of digging has value.
Why the fuck would anyone so blatantly waste their effort? Your example is retarded to begin with.
As I said before the market is an abstract tool to best make use of that effort.
So using the market you could find the quarry to dig in and evaluate your worth compared to say the foreman.
That doesn't mean the market is an empirical measure of worth though just that it's a useful tool.
If the tool is broken then it needs to be fixed.
If you believe that tool is impossible to break then I don't know what planet you live on but your abusing yourself there

One of those things you can negotiate, the other is taken by force. You also ignore the taxes on the 'surplus value'.

Both are taken by force. One buy state and the other by the business owners.

A price is effectively a measure of how much power one party has over the other. i.e. buying food on a shitty airline where they charge you asshole prices for a minipack of whatever. Same with CPU manufacturers having a duopoly.

And you can say "well thats not free market" but it is.... It gives you the right to dominate and restrict the options of your competitors and the image of the "cut-throat" business man is exhalted for it.

The lowest price is pure manufacturing costs and labor while the highest price is whatever you can be strung out to pay for.

>use others' property to produce value
>that value is entirely yours

Zzz

Absolutly not as much as commies

Attached: Antifascism.jpg (1024x1064, 121K)

It's not the effort that has value but the product of that effort. If effort was all that created value then any kind of digging wouldn't be done with shovels, but spoons, in order to make the digging more valuable.

Attached: keynesian_policy1.jpg (599x632, 70K)

Again why the fuck would you dig with spoons if you had a shovel? Your example is retarded.
I said at the start material's have objective value

>the market is an abstract tool to best make use of that effort.
The market is people freely exchanging things they own or have produced. That is literally it. It's not a tool, it's a nonviolent behavior. There is no alternative other than violence.

When two people make an exchange, they demonstrate their assessment of a thing's worth. If I trade you a chicken for your shoes, by definition you must value my chicken more than your shoes, and vice versa. But these values are entirely subjective to the individual in question, and at a particular time. There is no "objective" value outside of the value an individual ascribes to a thing, because only individuals are capable of ascribing value. Value doesn't even make sense if you take the actor out of the equation. What value is gold in a lifeless, empty universe?

Our realty may be objective, but value is entirely subjective.

Delusional enough to create the greatest country ever. Are you talking about socialist free trade, corporation loving, globalist fake libertarians?

Attached: political test 3.png (800x650, 83K)

We don't live in a society where two individuals make an exchange. We live in a society where businesses comprised of many people produce material wealth that is then sold to people most of those people will never meet and probably live in another continent.
You cannot boil modern society down to trading a chicken for shoes.

The process is certainly more complex, but the mechanism is the same. Value does not become any less subjective when you're buying shoes from a retailer with money you earned at an office job, as compared to trading your chicken at the local shoemaker's.

Libertarians are for Austrian Economics.
That means a 100% backed or accountable monetary system that cannot be printed at will and devalued like the current debt based fiat system can be.

This factor alone makes Libertarians THE BIGGEST THREAT to the status quo and the jew overlords.

This is why libertarianism is constantly attacked and NatSoc is promoted as it keeps government relevant and even worshipped.

If you've fallen for the natsoc meme, you have fallen for pol psyops and social influencers.

Attached: 1516999412903.png (1000x1000, 180K)

listen, you cant have Capitalism without at least SOME redistribution of wealth. Teddy Roosevelt understood it:

>In August 1931, over eight million citizens were unemployed. By 1933, that number would be closer to 15 million. The production of a relief system to absorb this growing mass was slow and widely resisted in America. This was the country where one was supposed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. The New Deal in the 30s and the Great Society programs of the 60s both had “the preservation of capitalism at all times in view” as a Time magazine article about the New Deal put it. But what exactly threatened capitalism at these times? The fear was in the dissolution of civility and good morals among the unemployed. Having no work, men wandered. It became less likely for them to marry and settle down. They may turn to crime or riots to take what they want or need.

Roosevelt taxed The Pigs 90% just to save the system from a Bolshevik-like Revolution in the US:

>Communist, anarchist, and socialist groups were beginning to look a lot more attractive to the unemployed and with riots becoming more common and unemployment still on the rise, one could speak of a “mass disorder” by the mid-30s. The New Deal (though it made some concessions that more hard-line American ideologues were uncomfortable with) was designed to steal that thunder and return the unemployed to work where they would become stable again. Roosevelt put it in simple terms: “I am fighting Communism, Huey Longism, Coughlinism, Townsendism,” he told an emissary of William Hearst in 1935, “I want to save our system, the capitalistic system; to save it is to give some heed to world thought of today. I want to equalize the distribution of wealth.”

Attached: capture.png (533x375, 120K)

fiat currency isn't capital

Attached: 1530334313064.jpg (1024x692, 101K)

No the material object still has an objective value.
We live in an objective world. The problem is we don't know what it's objective value is precisely and conflict arises out of that.
The market is a tool to help find that value because if 100 people want an item but only 50 items exist that item must be worth more than an item 1 person wants but 50 items exist.
Of course people can abuse that tool misrepresent the value of an item.
Just because you think somthing is worth somthing and someone else disagrees doesn't mean the value is subjective, it means one or both of you is wrong

>teddy roosevelt
>1933
I think you meant FDR. Even then the New Deal was ineffective at combating the depression and created a recession within it. Take your pinko bullshit elsewhere.

>material object still has an objective value.
>We live in an objective world
Value is not an objective, empirical phenomenon. It is an abstract concept, a judgment made by an actor about the utility of that object.

>it means one or both of you is wrong
On what grounds do you make the claim that the value can be something other than that which is given by the actors in question? What you're proposing literally makes no sense, because it suggests that value can exist without someone to do the valuation. Is there value in a universe devoid of life? How do you calculate it, when you don't exist?

you're sounding a lot of Stefan Molyneux there pal. Even he would disagree with you because you are incorrect. In a market economy, you use the market as an objective observation. It's as simple as that. The united states is an interventionist market state.

Why does surplus value extracted from your labor bother you?

For argument's sake, let us say that I have an automobile for sale. I come to an agreement with you to sell my automobile to you for $10,000.

You and I agree. You are happy. I am happy.

Two months later you sell the automobile to a third party.

Why would it be any of my business if you sell that automobile for $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000? Why should I care, and what difference does it make to me?

On the other hand, if some guy named Sam, who just so happens to be my Uncle said 'Hey hold on. Are you selling that car for $10,000? Well, now you owe me $2,000 of that just because I'm your uncle.

Who are you gonna get mad at? Your Uncle Sam? or the guy who sold the car that you sold him for a profit?

I'd be mad at my Uncle. If you would be mad at the other guy you are an idiot.

If the total value of your work is only made possible by the facilities, tools, and equipment I provided you, and you already agree to work in exchange for a set wage per hour, keeping in mind that your labor doesn't produce profit immediately, and that in some cases there is a delay of many years between work and profit, how on earth can you feel entitled to all the value produced as a result of your work?

I'd dig with a spoon because I'd use more effort which would make more value, at least in your own words.

>you use the market as an objective observation.
An observation of the value individuals place on a particular thing. This doesn't render it any less subjective. Value is subjective by definition. The very concept of value without an evaluator is nonsensical.

>if there was no life would an object still have value
Yes because it would still have potential value.
If people were reintroduced it would still be valuable

No retard because not all effort is equal

Shut the fuck up. Potential value my ass it's not energy. There is no value if there are no humans to place value on it. You're a fucking idiot.

Put it this way then.
If all the data in the world was put in the super computer it could provide you with the objective value of any thing
So the possibility of a perfect observer exists
So an objective value exists

The universe doesn't cease to exist if you close your eyes retard

>If people were reintroduced it would still be valuable
So the only way it could have value is with people to ascribe value to it. If people didn't exist, it would have no value. I'm glad you agree.

As you can see, value is contingent on an evaluator. Since different actors can produce different valuations, there is no way to objectively claim that one is "right" and one is "wrong" in their valuations (if they carry out an exchange based on them; I could claim that my shit is worth billions, but if I accept a penny for it, I've shown that I truly believe it to be worth less than a penny). Ergo, value is subjective.

>reading comprehension
it doesn’t actually say surplus labor anywhere....

Attached: 42B9FF23-ACD6-4A0F-B327-0BFA285C02AF.png (213x237, 8K)

Stellar argument Jamal.

Attached: 1520664611684.gif (640x480, 1.26M)

Wrong! Computers may record the static value that was placed upon an object by humans, but that value does not carry forward without those humans, unless the computer needs that object for survival, and has the means to aquire or trade for that product. Making that computer a sentient being. However that sentient being would place a different value upon that object and only provided thise specific conditions exist. Yet they don't and this little exercise in futility is your attempt to appear correct when you know you've been proven wrong and your statement absurd.

It's still valuable without people. Just less valuable. If all the gold collected in one spot that spot would be more valuable despite the lack of people because if people ever reappeared it would be more valuable. It wouldn't be as valuable as a gold pile with people but it would be more valuable than a pile of rocks without people.
Just because nobody can be objectively right doesn't mean there is no objective answer, it just means we are incapable

The computer exists with people

>it could provide you with the objective value of any thing
No, it couldn't. For fucks sakes, this is a really simple concept.

Suppose a man is wandering around in a desert, dying of thirst. A water-seller offers to sell him a water bottle for a thousand dollars, which he has in his wallet. He would probably gladly pay that price, because the water is worth more to him than the money in his pocket.

Now suppose you had a big meal and are completely satiated. Would you buy a water bottle from a street vendor for a thousand dollars? Of course not, because in this situation you do not value the water more than a thousand bucks.

Whose valuation of the water bottle is objectively correct, the dying man's or yours?

Humans are the universe until you prove the existence of other beings the universe is currently only observed and occupied by us meaning if we cease to exist and observe this universe it effectively does not exist either.

imagine entirely different universe that for some reason is made completely out of carbon, with literally no other elements, no potential differences, no active stars, nothing.
It's just one fuckhuge ball of diamond in a middle of literal nothing, no one can get it, no one can see it, no one can own it

how much is it worth

>because if people ever reappeared it would be more valuable.
That's my point. The only possible way anything could be valuable is if people are there to give it value. If people did not exist in the universe, value would be a meaningless concept. In order to have this very discussion, we must both exist. It is a necessary prerequisite for everything that follows.

If you mean no sentient life will ever exist objectively nothing

>objectively nothing
Why?

but it is a huge ball of diamonds
how can diamonds be worthless?

The logic is sound but the surplus value is way too large for most businesses and the taxes are way too tiny since they're around 40% of the income in most countries with welfare.

>Your effort has an objective worth
It literally doesn't

Dingdingdingdingdingdingfuckingding

This whole discussion is retarded because we do exist but even if we all got vaporised tomorrow the things we left behind would eventually be valuable again to somthing. So they would maintain value.

It doesn't exist because there is no observer. How could you even make the claim the diamond exists? The whole idea is retarded

Just give him the water.

I never claimed it was retard

Again, we have this ridiculous idea that two people enter into a voluntary agreement and are victimizing/being-victimized by honoring the terms they mutually agreed to. Nothing stops you from working for someone else, or even starting your own venture altogether.

But this is perfect leftist-logic. Its like when you guys take it upon yourselves to be offended, on behalf of other people, for things like "cultural appropriation..." And then the people you're pretending to be offended on behalf of say "wait a minute, we don't even care!"

Always using altruism as a cloak, and other people as props in your various, stupid power-grabs.

Attached: 1502465411358.jpg (554x380, 31K)

about twelve.

It is not valuable without people if people were "reintroduced" they would have to follow the exact same path we did in order to place the same value on the same objects and that is a fallacy it's all a false implication made up in your mind.
You are implying if people were wiped off the universe and the reintroduced they would follow the exact same path and place the exact same values upon everything and that is a fallacy. Two different people right now have a low probability of following the exact same path to work let alone during their entire existance.
You are not good at this you should stop now while you only look like a moron before it gets much worse.

Why isn't it a ball of graphite?

Hahaha perfect!

because i am (((conditioned))) to like diamonds

>It doesn't exist because there is no observer.
so i guess most of our universe doesn't exist either

Gold has objective value though. It has unique properties.
Are you telling me that if the world was told you have a month to live and then everyone dies people wouldn't try leave something behind?
Why would they do that if things have no value without immediate recognition.
Are you telling me money lost behind the couch has no value until it's found again?
Are you telling me an island of solid gold sitting in the middle of the pacific is worthless?

Surplus value don't exist. Fuck off commies. Sage

>valuable again to somthing
>they would maintain value
If you need someone in order for value to exist, then the corollary is that value cannot exist without someone. If people vanish, value vanishes. If people appear, value appears. Why? Because value is given by a valuator. That is how value comes about.

Would he be willing to pay a thousand dollars? Absolutely. Therefore, according to his valuation, the value of the water is over a thousand dollars, otherwise he'd tell the water merchant to go fuck himself.

Giving him the water for free simply means that the water merchant's valuation of a bottle is less than the mental and emotional satisfaction of helping a dying man. It doesn't tell us about that dying man's valuation, which was the issue in question.

We could at some point observe it.
No one can observe your pretend universe ever. You can't even claim it exists without defeating your point

Nope

Or soot lol if its pure carbon it could be a lot of things.
I think he specifically said Diamond because humans place value upon that currently yet it really has no practical application without us proving to the idiot user that value is not objective. Value doesnt just exist.
If that were true you could tell me the exact value of jupiter right now it "potential value"
how much is jupiter worth if we sell ever atom right now?
Answer the question. If value is objective you should be able to give me a precise value right this second.

No the value doesn't vanish.
What a valuer estimates has no standing on the objective value unless they are literally the last sentient being in existence

>We could at some point observe it.
not if ftl is impossible
>You can't even claim it exists without defeating your point
multiverse is a valid scientific hypothesis

both communism and Übercapitalism is retarded

>Gold has objective value though.
What is that value, exactly? How do you calculate it?

Knowledge of an island of gold or money behind a couch has value, just as a treasure map has value. But that value is not objective. A rich, fat, and lazy fuck may not value the money in his couch, assuming it requires effort to locate, as much as a fit and poor guy will. That doesn't mean he is wrong, it simply means that the value that money would provide to him does not outweigh the effort required to get it. That is how subjective value works.

Remember, value is a concept that compares two or more things. It's an ordinal measure, not a cardinal one.

>scientists, researches lay the scientific framework
>marketing researches the actual need customers will pay to satisfy and prepare the market
>engineers design the product
>engineers design automatized equipment, tools
>countless other people work together
>entrepreneur took the risk and organized the whole workflow and got them together

>low iq animal is hired and then trained to put two pieces together, in a brainless exercise, where they just use him as a tool
>sees a car and says

>"I made that"

>value of your labor
>value of the replaceable human trash, who has no bargaining power, because he has no knowledge, no talent, no unique value to his name, 12 of him is a dozen

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: communism___.jpg (800x487, 54K)

We can observe it without travelling there. Something can objectively be worthless

What is the objective value? How is it objective? How is it measured?

You keep taking about this, but you have not once explained what this concept even means. Either your trolling at this point, or you're just a moron.

we can't observe it if it's light didn't get here

>what is the objective value of gold
If we could discern the objective value of things we wouldn't need the market would we?
We don't have an omnipotent supercomputer to tell us the objective value though.
That doesn't mean no objective value exists
It doesn't matter that it's comparing two things. That's like saying you can't measure length because it could be in metres of feet.
Whether it's worth 3 bananas or 50 thumbtacks it still has an objective value