Yes, and nothing that has ability to affect lots of unintended targets

No mcnukes or supervirus

More guns = less violent crime

@Mr. Wright no, the point of 2A is to resist the tyranny of the state. We need to be able to be equally as armed a the state.

Generic US conservative believes in liberalism

Business is just an extension of a group or individual. To limit businesses ability to act is an infringement on people's rights and punishing them for the wrong kind of freedom of association

@L0GAN foreign companies should have no say in ones government or politics.

@Doctor Anon I mean a breakdown of it

Like what the percentage of the criminals genetics are white or native

Would be interesting if it is the Latinos with higher than average native heritage that are the ones being incarcerated

Protectionism is bad economic policy. However, it is a useful political tool to punish and bully other nations into submission.

Sweatshop labor is good for those in sweatshops. They average higher wages than others in the same country. It helps raise families and nations out of poverty. Those working in sweatshops want to work there, so protectionism against sweatshop labor is punishing them for their own choices and pursuing their own best interest.

@Jay1532 the free market has existed for short periods of time in localized areas. However, it is what we should be striving for as it is demonstrably the best system. The closer we get to it, the better

@Jay1532 it may initially help a less developed nation catch up to more advanced nations, but it's effect on more developed nations is not trivial. The free market incentivizes innovation, which is the greatest driver in increase of real wealth and higher living standards, and more developed nations have a better ability and more resources to innovate. Wealthy, developed nations increase the wealth of all nations just by creating better and cheaper products and developing more efficient means of production. This is all done best through the free market.

@Jay1532 China is a house of cards

Their economy is getting ever more precarious and unstable

Much of their growth is artificial and manufactured

It is going to catch up to them soon enough

Lol, no China is not challenging the pax Americana. Trump has showed just how weak they really are

@Doctor Anon government contracts doesn't drive the kind of innovation that leads to more prosperity though. Most of that innovation is expensive and not practical until the market gets to improve upon it

Oh, in regards to contracts for military tech I'm all in favor of it.

What's expensive and impractical on the market shouldn't be a consideration for defense

Primary/elementary is to teach kids to be good citizens and anything beyond is to teach skills to be good workers.

*isn't that extreme*

He wasn't against 100% tax rate of the top 1%

Breitbart is not very extreme at all

They are basically your average conservative

Social programs are socialism

Social programs take the capital (means of production) from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor

It is blatant socialism

Involuntary redistribution of wealth is socialism any way you cut it

The fact breitbart pushes basic conservatism, while socialists like Bernie Sanders are outside the overton window.

@εïз irma εïз no, the military is a basic and essential role of the state

@εïз irma εïз where did I say the same?

@εïз irma εïз that is not logical at all, give an argument or there is no logic

Hahahaha >Bernie is not hard left

@εïз irma εïз argument is the basis of logic

@εïз irma εïз look higher

Because I made my argument here: Social programs take the capital (means of production) from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor

@εïз irma εïз you are an idiot. I specifically said the redistribution of means of production.

@Doctor Anon I've noticed

@εïз irma εïз capital is the means of production. If you are taking it from one person and giving it to another it is being redistributed

@εïз irma εïз how do they get the factory? First by having capitol

The factory is wealth

It is directly translatable into capitol

I never said they weren't @ham addition

I called you an idiot for saying I said the same thing

You're assumption that means of production is only material just shows that you know nothing about being a "capitalist"/entrepreneur. They only have what you call means of production because they have the capital (happy?). By turning capital into "means of production" you are simply turning it into real wealth. That real wealth can be directly transferred back into capital. Capital and real wealth are equivalent. That apple example you gave is a means of production, aka real wealth. It can be turned right back into capital by selling it again.

If you take capital from a wealthy person you are necessarily removing his means of production (or if you prefer potential means of production). Alternatively he could take that capital, invest it, and create more capital. Thus his capital was used to produce more capital.

What? Being paid for your labor is not redistribution, it is a fair trade

Government redistribution is not fair trade

@εïз irma εïз if the mop are collectively owned then if it were to be sold each person would receive a partial amount of the amount it was sold for. Even then, the distribution of capital has been distributed. If they pool their capital to buy more mop they now all collectively own it again. You cannot separate mop from capital.

Nords are also moving away from social programs

@εïз irma εïз anything can be used as currency, the workers could trade their mop for corn and then trade the corn again for some other mop

For a farmer it is

The farm and the corn

A farmer without seed cannot produce. The actor and the acted upon are interchangeable, logically speaking.

Thus the seed and the farm are means of production

!rank

Accepting of homosexuality is cancerous to every society that has ever done it.

Social programs violate private property, turning it into the property of the state. Thus being collectively owned by all and distributed as the state sees fit.

Theoretically the state could tax all your wealth and then redistribute it at will so long as it was legal.

Bernie Sanders even started in one interview he wasn't against 100% taxation

I'm making the case that in practicality there is no distinction @Deleted User

Then refute what I said

@Deleted User and state ownership is collective ownership, I already addressed this

What the state owns is collectively owned by all. The state under their system has the right to tax everything. Meaning that the state theoretically can or does own everything.

@Deleted User I don't know their system or how it is set up

@Deleted User I'd rather not talk about that as I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss it.

My argument addresses specifically social democrats, I don't know enough about their system

Bernie Sanders doesn't understand the Nordic model

Because he has made factually inaccurate statements about it

@εïз irma εïз on that I'd agree

No I'm not

I never claimed the Nordic model was socialist. I claimed social programs are socialist

And i would say it has socialist aspects to it

I already said

I already argued with you about that

Not gained from it, I argued that they are interchangeable

Of course you gain capital from your mop

@Deleted User honestly it is the aesthetic of another server I'm in.

It's a libertarian one

But I do like what he ultimately accomplished in chile

I'm not actually libertarian, just really close to it

Who is Peron?

Was about to say lol

Looks sharp

The only reason I'm not full libertarian, is the cultural aspect.

You can't let your society be free and open to subversion and degeneracy

wtf? why was I pinged? <:PingReee:459545654126051329>

they need a prison

^graph

rip

^members

no admins are here

^members

into what?

are they done?

guess not

oh doctor anon owns?