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.