Why does the US hate consumer protections and employee rights?

>German
your grandfathers couldn't win the war
your bloodline is weak

Because those things aren't rights.

If you don't like a product, don't buy it. If you don't like a job don't work there. Are you such a fucking retard that you need big brother government to make your life choices for you?

>work ass off in isolation
>finally succeed
>swarmed by THIEVES

i want socialists dead

Attached: p.jpg (920x554, 75K)

Mongo post. I would say I am disappointed in you, Aussie bro....but I'm not. Sad.

Lobbyists shill in favor of corporations, and most people are just compliant with the law because its too complicated for people to understand or they don't care.

Because the world is FILLED with billions of enjoyable jobs that pay living wages and bring employee satisfaction, right? People who hate their job should just quit on Friday and start a new job on Monday. Just go into the interview, look them straight in the eye and give them a firm handshake - that job will be YOURS!
You absolute bellend boomer Yanky cunt.

Consumers can protect themselves. Anyone claiming that consumers need to pay them for protection is a con artist.

Because our national private sector profits come from consumers/tax payers. Look at our debt. How does that tax situation make sense? Look at how our tech sector (biggest growth) relies on exploitation. We made our choice and it's corporate over lords redistributing our wealth into their pants.

We have both of those things moron.

>pay a pittance of taxes on billions of dollars profit
>reap the rewards of a stable society underpinned by tax money
>complain about having to support said society and have the audacity to accuse others of theft.

Why don't these self-made billionaires ever come from Somalia or Afghanistan? I'll tell you why: they leach off a successful, tax-supported society by relying on the pre-built infrastructure and then act like utter kikes when they are asked to help sustain that society through taxation.
Seriously, hang yourself, you kike-loving grovelling goy. Your ilk makes me sick.

I'm yet to see a billionaire who is truly moral. Therefore, your argument is null and void.

because anything that helps or benefits US citizens in any way is considered "communist" or "socialist" over there.

What makes you think slavery is bad?

>giving their money to the government is helping society
LOL

>I want more money for my labor than it's worth
What an envious kike you are

Because they are the brakes to further exploitation and it costs money.

>I want to hoard more money than I'll ever be able to spend.

Choke on your shekels, Jew.

because most of the time it's just niggers and low lives trying to play the system for gibs

Go cry to your internet stores, faggot...

Because they're psychopaths and mostly selfish individualists who believe they've earned it when it was in fact society that helped them earn it in the first place.

2real

Attached: 1529294367514.png (540x524, 316K)

Government is what allowed them to become rich in the first place.

So you're saying that all businesses should be founded outside of any society and function as the government of a newly founded nation?

Should governments treat businesses at competing states trying to infiltrate and invade?

Time to play the jew faggots.

>YOU are leading a secret war against the enemy
youtu.be/VNn3i1aakIs

If we want to win this war we must adopt the appearance of our enemies. We must take their propaganda campaigns to the next level, and make it so clear that white genocide and the destruction of the US is what they want that no normie could miss it. Time is on their side. They have been patient, planning their moves on year-long schedules, moving along at such a slow pace that most people don't pick up on what's happening. Things are changing though. If someone has the Steinlight plan pic, post it. Basically the pace of jew propaganda is steadily increasing, to the point where it's becoming more noticeable. The kikes know that people will realize eventually, but they're hoping it'll be too late by then.

Chaos is what they want. Let's give it to them.

Good video about ACCELERATIONISM vs racism,, he debunked racism
>it doesnt exist
Jow Forums is a great example of what Based Bellagio is talking about
>the BIG RED BUTTON THEORY

We are not racist just cause we hate niggers qnd kikes, we hate them cause the media says dont touch that red button... and they are subhuman animals too

Watch this video and understand
What it means to watch the world burn!!!

youtu.be/71dAwTS_l1Q

Enjoy

>bonus meme
Curious case of Jason Dalton MKUltra Uber killer
youtu.be/KeO7jXvfp4g

Spoopy!

Attached: 1549539802287.jpg (616x438, 83K)

We've found Jow Forums's Cathy Newman
>So you're saying
>So you're saying
>So you're saying

No you retard, and that society would fall apart in an instant if it was run by corporations.

Corporatists should pay their fair share instead of using tax evasion and off shore accounts and promote workers rights and not cry about "but muh wealth".

Cause any kind of state regulation is shit and breeding ground for corruption

They already do. It only depends on who signs the cheques.

And corporations are not corrupt?

without state interventions they compete in order to fulfill customers' needs.
E.g. If you don't like Pepsi you by Cola or whatever
I am not sure what would the term corruption even mean applied to corporations.

What about a nation that functions as a business instead of a business that functions as a nation?
What if a nation wanted taxes to be paid in slaves instead of money? Should corporations pay their taxes then? Just imagine a world where there is no money, only slavery.

It’s an abuse of human rights, you psychopath.
Die.

So you're saying I'm a woman?

>pointless hypotheticals
Slavery is bad and so is corruption.
Tax evasion is an evil and an abuse of societial privileges.

Corruption always exists wherever power exceeds competence. Taxing a corporation to hell and back will reduce its power and, therefore, its corruption. This would then hand that power straight to the government, creating corruption there. The point is finding a balance where neither has enough power to be overly corrupt.

> I am not sure what would the term corruption even mean applied to corporations.

You really are retarded it seems.

pic related

So essentially not the USA.
Congratulations you’ve finally worked it out.

Make, no mistake. I'm all in favor of all people being born free and equal under the law. I just think that a free person should have the freedom to hand that freedom to someone else. I've met people who would if they had the choice.

Heres the pic

Attached: custom-enron-logo-neon-sign-1-M7ird.jpg (1000x1000, 274K)

Nonsense. Corps have been proven to form economic cartels where the consumer has little choice in terms of price/product.
Take your argument of Cola or Pepsi. Notice how you only ever find a single vending machine that sells only Cola or Pepsi? Not both? Same for fast food outlets etc. Consumers are railroaded into making their choices.

Corruption is bad, I agree. I also agree on tax evasion. Slavery on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable so long as there is consent between the slave and the owner.

>society

go back to art school hippy

What’s the difference between slavery and abuse then?
What’s to stop an employer fucking you in the ass against your will and saying “lol you’re my slave remember?”

You want to go back to the 18th century you ancap bootlicker.

Agreed. The USA is a remarkable example of corporations and government sharing power in a way that allows both to be as corrupt as they would be if they each had all the power.

Neck yourself bootlicker

Why do communists continue to pretend they care about it?
We have seen what your policies lead to on way too many occasions.

Thats why we have regulation you nigger

lol best statement of the day

Attached: 1509257821993.png (650x581, 284K)

They all have this childish believe that they (or their off-springs) are going to become billionaire, therefore they support tax cuts for billionaires like the absolute morons they are.

corporations are government entities

There is a clear difference between owning a dog and abusing a dog, right? You provide everything the dog wants to the best of your ability and do nothing to harm it, you are a good dog owner. You starve, beat, rape and otherwise harm a dog, you are an animal abuser. The only difference between that and slavery is that a human is able to properly consent to not having any freedom while a dog just doesn't know any different.
As for slave owners being abusive, I don't know about elsewhere in the world but in the British commonwealth we have the RSPCA which does a decent job dealing with animal abuse so I don't see why we couldn't have a RSPCS to deal with slave abuse.

Reviving old concepts with new methods isn't always a bad idea. A railgun is basically a crossbow that uses magnets instead of a bowstring, and railguns are damn effective.

I agree. I was just explaining around the point rather than cutting right to it.

>if you wanted to be rich, you’d just have money

Ah I see

No you didnt you're a moron and sound like a moron in your comments kys.

Humans are not dogs they are a bit more complex is you havent noticed, your argument is invalid.

this is only true if you have a business or corporation like Disney World. Do you think owning a restaurant is like having your own government ? It doesnt resemble anything like what the government does. It depends on the nature of the corporation.

This is why I love Disneyworld. Its the perfect model for a Corporation acting as a state, but obviously not all Corporations are at that level of providing services and goods to the masses

Attached: hitler.jpg (1280x720, 259K)

>implying the average burger can do anything about the legions of lobbyists on k-street

I gave up my rights when I signed my work contract in 2004.

Attached: 20190125_151744.jpg (2560x1440, 1.02M)

>more complex
they will answer to the same pavlov reflex, they just bark in more variable ways

No, I meant they may as well be extensions of the state given that use and abuse it's presence to get their own way

because most low level workers are Mexicans who don’t deserve to be here in the first place. I hope low level workers are treated worse just as a disincentive

How would you have a balance of power between corporations and government other than through regulations? I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you on this to begin with.

Of course humans are more complicated than dogs. The fact that both slaves and slave owners are human shows that humans are more complicated and capable of more complicated relationships than dogs. Humans are capable of ownership, contractual obligation, mutually assured destruction, and plenty more. As far as I am concerned, all possible types of relationships between humans, including slavery, are acceptable so long as all people involved agree to it.

No its not ok, we live in a society which requires you to work to stay alive, that is forced slavery.
Nobody agrees to being a slave unwillingly.

Just wondering, would a corporation that functions like a state be acceptable under anarcho-capitalism?

>humans are dogs with paperwork

Because it upsets our jewish masters

So was GULAG.

Attached: Dagashi Kashi.png (531x660, 372K)

Short answer is yes

I'm opposed to wage slavery as well. There isn't a real choice there. Employees agree to work in return for money and then find that the society acts to effectively force them into slavery and that is unacceptable.
There are people who would agree to slavery willingly. As you said, humans are complex. Some are positively predisposed to being slaves, most aren't. As I said earlier, I have met people who would agree to be slaves.
To state, simply, the basic ideas behind this, having freedom requires the taking up of responsibility. Even without civilization or society, I am not free to live unless I take up the responsibility of getting food and water as well as not getting killed by other things in nature. Now, the more freedom you want, the more responsibility you must have and the more responsibility you have, the more freedom you have. Generally speaking, people dislike responsibility and like freedom. Some people like freedom more than they dislike responsibility and, as such, work hard so as to prosper. Some people dislike responsibility more than they like freedom and, as such, strive only for basic comfort so as to avoid work.
There are people who would give up all freedom so as to live a life similar to that of a pampered pooch. I personally don't like that there are people like that, but there are and they shouldn't be barred from their ideal lives of golden shackles just because the idea of slavery is widely detested.

Thanks. Also, I don't suppose you have thought about how Protofeudalism could arise from an anarcho-capitalist society? I find the idea quite interesting.

In a system built on scarcity,people on the lower economic ladder are there because of that scarcity, no access to good education for example, which leads to those people not being able to advance up the economic ladder which has been installed by that very same system of scarcity that favors a class of people who already have wealth. The system is disigned to keep people poor and a few very wealthy.

These same people dictates the rules of the system and shape the culture. The system that has been put in place favors these wealthy individuals because they are the haves and the rest are have nots. Why can't people who dislike responibility have to struggle and be a slave in a world where abundance is on the rise while a few have unimaginable wealth?

It's possible, There is no system where everyone will act perfect,. I believe ancap is designed well enough that Attempts to overthrow it or form a tyrranical government like entity would be squashed before it does any damage

I agree that the current system is terrible. Power has centralized to the point where entrepreneurship is actively prevented in certain industries so as to keep the people on top where they are. Even where it isn't actively prevented, there is seemingly endless bureaucracy standing in the way of change.
I would rather see a world where everything is run through personal relationships rather than societal, corporate, or governmental systems that inevitably devolve into what we see today and worse. I would rather see a world such as that even if it was in name only as then people (including those within and on top of the systems) would still see the systems as large and complex series of relationships rather than single entities with immense power and in which, one must simply find a place.

And what will prevent the corporations from becoming tyrannical entities? Corporations only seek profit, what would stop these ancap companies from forming an oligarchy and rape its customers to death and lay waste to the whole society?

Private law. Consent. The NAP. Unrestricted Weapon ownership. Market Darwinism. No state to fuck with their competetion competition. just to name a few
TL;DR Coercion based monopolies are Impossible or Extremely difficult/expensive under ancap

Lets say the private law companies start forming an oligarchy and turn corrupt, what will prevent them from doing this?

Dont you think companies are more prone to corruption because they seek only profit, "anything for a buck" (but thats a problem with the more underlying system) mentality, I would not want to live in a world ruled by unethical corporations with no where the overseer is also a corrupt corporation.

Why don't you worry about your own fucking job commie nigger

No, Abusing and going to wars with Your customers is not profitable

Dunno the fuck you're on, I can buy Pepsi, Cola and a lot of stuff like that in a local store even in Russia.
If it was provided by the state it would have taste of rat urine and there shall be constant shortages.
If you don't like a product and there exists free market you can buy from another supplier that is more than likely to kick in but the drama starts when da gubarmint starts to regulate markets.

I was an anarcho-capitalist myself once, and I still agree with the principles, but I found a very interesting train of thought a while back. Basically, in an ancap society, a good businessman could come to own a very large plot of land, large enough to be the land of a nation, as well as a means of protecting that land. Now this is where we get to something like a nation. He could sell small pockets of that land to people, pockets surrounded by land that is still his, and then let people go wherever they want on his land in return for a fee every month or so (you could think of this as tax). Next, he could add a bunch of rules to the contract that says people can go wherever on his land (think traffic laws and the like). He could then, using his excess wealth, establish unprofitable businesses that would handle the enforcement of his rules (courts and police) so as to not burden whatever he has protecting the land from external threats. After a while, running all of that might be a bit much for him to handle. He might then decide to establish another unprofitable business to run everything for him. Now he could then decide to let all of his customers (taxpayers) apply for the job positions within that company and, instead of him going through countless resumes and deciding on everything, he could let his customers vote for who gets the jobs. Let this naturally progress for a bit and you have a population of taxpayers under a democratic parliament, owned by a monarch. Now, one crucial thing about this is that land owned by taxpayers would not belong to the monarch at all, and, as such, the laws of the nation would not apply. You could have a nation where private contracts override the law on private property. At that point, you could just have basic laws regarding the legitimacy of contracts (a contract is not valid if not signed by each and every relevant party, and such) and a second court system that deals with private contracts. How does that sound?

The USA hates ethnic Americans. The US government and supporting institutions are actively trying to exterminate the founding stock of this country.

Companies abuse their customers every day, even spy on them, which is very profitable.

>I'm a capitalist but I don't understand how capitalism works

I'm curious, how would you say, an ancap system work in a world of abundance and automation?

>Why does the US hate consumer protections and employee rights?

Because some rich guys told them to. That's it, really.

Attached: 9873684.jpg (251x350, 18K)

So do the Gulags comrade

The Gulags was initiated by Stalin due to declaring an emergency state.

Stalinism is not communism, get your history right next time bootlicker.

Sure it would be possible, honestly I see it happening with most communities. Ancap allows other systems to coexist provided no coercion is involved

I'm the bootlicker yet every attempt at large scale communism has resulted in a Tyranical Police state that has killed millions of its own people

Frankly, I don't think it would work all that well in any context. It would always have to fend off invasions from outside nations and the rise of nations from within, all the while, there would be little to no large scale organisation or unification, which would be needed for problems as big as invasions and developing countries.
As for a post-scarcity world with global ancap. The abundance of resources and advanced technology would allow military forces to assemble locally and crush anything as soon as it begins to resemble a state, so that wouldn't be much of a problem so long as people are willing to fight to protect the ancap utopia. Regarding the economy, everything that is automatically produced in abundance would be considered worthless and handmade things would be valuable. The basic idea can be seen today in, for example, the metalwork industry. Mass-produced knives are only worth a few dollars but hand-forged knives can be worth hundreds even though the difference in quality is small. People prefer people to machines and will pay to indulge that preference.