Anybody who watched the video I posted this afternoon, are there any thoughts or criticisms that you have about it?

@Danov It was fine

Want to watch my cringy videos

?

Funnily enough, you're the first person to call it cringey.

MY CRINGY

@Danov

@BoleslawBierutLover show me whatchu got

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa91cxSjdSQW1XvOnUJ9QfA/featured

@Danov

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kajqjOCtg8

hi

No Huns allowed.

oh ok

Yet we allow animals like neoliberals in?

Why did I get linked this

I'm an anarcho-capitalist

You're also a gay baby lel

lol k

What led you to capitalism and Austrian economics

Who hurt you

logic, statistics, and practicality

🤔

Any specific reasons

That the state only serves to perpetuate itself and take the liberties and property of the people

While selling it as for their own good

Oh word

The power behind the upper class doesn't worry you?

lets kill the rich

Oh it does, but not because of the upper class themselves, merely their ability to lobby government into monopoly-perpetuating regulations

You don't think some monopolies tend to develop in certain industries? Or regions?

Lobbying is obviously one of the corporation's greatest strengths.

Well, without state regulation, any monopoly could only perpetuate itself by either outperforming the competition or providing the best prices. State monopolies on the other hand are maintained by regulation and force.

Private property and capitalism need to be maintained by force though anyway.

I mean you'd just have private companies acting as government, no?

No, that violates the NAP

as such

people with guns tend to stop those that use means of aggression

Guns are good. No guarantee in a world with large centralized military and nukes I suppose.

How do you define a state?

A means of involuntary control and theft maintained by force funded from said theft

As Murray Rothbard puts it, there are two ways to make capital, the *natural means*, that is to apply labor to natural resources and exchange the products of that labor, and the *political means*, that is to steal pillage and loot. The state is the organization of the political means.

You see though that lefties tend to think both the government and capitalist organizations fit that description.

The surplus labor point?

They see both as theives

A job is a voluntary agreement between employer and employee.

That "surplus labor" that lefties like to say is stolen is that of the person who puts effort into running a business, and fronts the financial risk to create one

@Apophis False, you ignore that somebody who does not own the means of production and had no initital resources has absolutely no choice but to sell his labor power to somebody above him

No, he has the choice not to, but he'll deal with the consequences of not actually working to survive

the employer offers a voluntary alternative to inevitable starvation

It isn't the question of working, it s the question of being subject to somebody else's expoloitation

as workers do not get the value of their labor

A choice having consequence does not make it not a choice. It isn't exploitation

Yes it is

Yes they do, they get what they voluntarily agreed was their labor's value

But they do not have a choice

they must sell themselves to a capitalist

Yes they do

They can choose to face the consequences of refusing to contribute to something

That is not much choice, be exploited here or here. Talk to anybody who actually works because you clearly don't, nobody fucking likes their job

@Apophis People want to contribute something they actually want to it isn't about being lazy you retard

*I can't actually disprove so I throw ad hominems and non-cited, false consensus anecdotes*

I just did

I said people must sell themselves to a capitalist. They are subject to them, that is not a free choice

Capitalists need to make a profit

And as such they need to pay their workers less than their value, that is exploitation

Capital is the measure of contribution to society. If one does not contribute, then they should not freely recieve the property of those who do

Smh, but they must contribute to a capitalist, somebody profiting off their labor.

@Apophis join vc of this server you have so much misconceptions I cannot type this

https://discord.gg/hxSVtxV

Yes, and capitalists make their money providing goods and services to those who need or want them

I don't *do* voice chat

Than we are done here

Fine.

@Apophis Get a job please.

Don't critisise people who contribute when you yourself do not

That's not how leftists define a capitalist. Which is fine.

Maybe ask around for some books

Or something

Right, it's not like I work to provide the internet I'm talking to you with @BoleslawBierutLover. Quit your ad hominem bs

>Capital is the measure of contribution to society.
What about volunteering or unpaid work? It is a bit cynical to say all contributions are reducible to creation of capital. It is not mandatory and when someone else takes the credit for you work, that's exploitation also.

Alright, you can choose not to accept capital for work. As a proponent of voluntary charity, I'll concede that, but in general that claim stands. They've contributed labor, or goods, or whatever it may be, and that causes them to get capital

hence why those the consumer favors get more

So it is possible to do unpaid work. There is not a necessary relationship between work and capital. Therefore your statement that capital is a measure of contribution is arbitrary and assumes something that is not inherent in the nature of labour. Capital is optional result of labour, among many things. You are putting too much weight on the assumption that all society ought to be run this way. This is called ideological bias.

there is a relationship between work and capital, if some wish to not take any form of capital for their work that's fine, I've nothing against that. But people are generally compelled to make a profit, and it's through labor, be that as a business owner or as an employee of a business that satisfies the consumer, that that capital is made. Therefore, while work can be done without making capital, capital cannot be made without doing work.

Are investments considered work?

Yes

That's kind of what investing is

So the act of buying and selling is considered work, probably the minimal kind. Should you get paid according to the amount of work?

You should get paid based on voluntary agreement as to what the labor or exhange is worth. If the investor voluntarily agrees with the investee that he should get X return on profits, and both parties are okay with that, then X return of profits would be the value of the investor's contribution

Fuck no, investing isn't work

Wanna elaborate at all?

Yes, but i have no idea why someone would think that in the first place

Well when you say "work", do you mean profession, labor, or what?

>voluntary agreement
Here is the problem. If the conventions of the market are not favourable to you, you can not negotiate with it, else you have no market. You are assuming that all traders have equal footing. If you are in a disadvantaged position, as dictated by the market, there is no such thing as 'voluntary agreement'. You will starve.

Again what I said workers are subject to what the capitalists decide for them

Yes, and one can choose not to contribute through work and face the consequence of starving. The employer merely offers an alternative

VOLUNTARILY