Ofc but prostitutes have existed in prehistoric times

Because we have both blacks and whites of varying IQs who are successful regardless of IQ? On average, certain races may not be as smart, but the difference is a very gradual climb and not a sharp cliff

And Prostitutes do indeed individually own the means of their own production

It's a bellcurve, you will find genius black people

If you compare the life of a person with an IQ of 90 and that of a person with the IQ of 150 then of course you'll see a radical difference, but the vast majority fall into the meaty middle

But, hunting existed prior. And, the food would then be shared with the tribe

no one is claiming every black people is dumb

Depends on how you defined a tribe

Ok I'm pretty sure we agree on everything

If the number is very insignificant, then they're more likely to share.

But once you have 100 people in a tribe, a natural hierarchy exist

and people suddenly want to individually owns things

It's just that if genetics is a large factor in IQ, I would be against policies such as affirmative action.

However, show a damn source for that dude

I would be against policies such as affirmative action regardless, as being part of a toxic culture does not entitle you to succeed more than somebody multitudes smarter who came from a middle class family

If IQ is based on genetics

GG @lemonsaw, you just advanced to level 5!

I would argue the toxic culture is caused by low IQ

Prior to capitalism there was fuedalism

I read your statement wrong

Yeah sorry I agree with you

I'm against it regardless

Snapped this off /pol.

GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 1!

As for socialism / marxism, the biggest issue in general that I have is the surplus labor value. The general idea of the surplus labor value theory is that profit, aka excess labor, exceeds the cost of the worker's labor and is stolen by the greedy capitalist. However, this fails to take into account the mobility of the worker, wherein if a worker feels their labor is not being valued correctly then they have the possibility of simply switching jobs. However, if you are a business owner, you don't have the luxury of simply deciding to have a new business one day, especially if your assets are invested into this business

Furthermore, a worker does not invest assets into a business (generally speaking.) The person providing the menial labor does not have the same risk the person running a business has, and since the person running the business owns these means of productions thus allowing the worker to receive compensation without any risk to themselves, then they are entitled to the profits made. If a worker feels like they deserve the profit that comes with controlling the means of production then, in a free market such as the one we have today, they are able to open their own business. That's the glory of a somewhat regulated free market, a good balance of consumer protection, worker protection, and profit.

Post it in economic-issues

Not to mention, the class theory presented is lacking. In the 19th century, sure, most people who owned the means of production were rich and post menial workers were poor, however, nowadays these classes simply have no meaning. A person with a hot dog cart is going to have much less money than a professional footballer player, however according to the outdated marxist class system it should be the opposite way around. Even at the time that the USSR implemented socialism this was true, with many rich peasants aka "Kossaks" being killed. Mind you, being rich simply meant owning a few acres of land more than anybody else.

And will do

What's your view of the economy then?

Personally, I think a moderately regulated free market is the best form of economy you can have. The moderate regulation means that mobility is possible and new businesses can flourish, monopolies cannot exist, and other devious practices are not permitted, however there would not be an excess of overbearing political hoops to jump through in order to open your own business. This also somewhat extends to things such as consumer protection, worker protection, and the best part is all of these things are possible while *also* still allowing a business to be heavily profitable.

Fair enough

Would you subsidize public services?

Such as healthcare

It depends on what is considered a public service. As for specifically healthcare, no, and the reason I distinct this from other services is because healthcare can be effected by others. Take water treatment as an example. Generally speaking, your neighbor can gulp down all the water he wants and you won't run out, because of the way water treatment works. However, on a national healthcare plan, somebody else's poor choice could mean a difference in your quality of healthcare.

Get the fuck out of my race channel.

I will have nobody eat your ass.

The worst system we could have, however, is the one that we have right now, a mixed system wherein prices go up because the government is willing to subsidize it but only to an extent where the consumer ends up paying insane amounts. If you go into a hospital and ask how much an x-ray will cost, they can't tell you. Imagine walking into a store and taking a box of cereal from the shelf, but when you go to purchase it, the clerk tells you "I'll bill you later"

I thought you want to regulate free market when it did not work

How can a healthcare system possibly work in a free market

Saving your life is not something you can negotiate

Shut up