Message from @Seven Of Swords
Discord ID: 487371096757108749
What if the economic and social system only creates spaces for people to make decisions that cannot solve the problems created by the system in the first place?
No matter how much health care, welfare or however many political policies are instituted by a state?
dude, really? do I have to read that wall of text? I have shit to get done. I'll get back to you... eventually, sometime.
I'm afk for a reason
Y'all posting essays xD
@igorbloodscene Noted. Which is why a discussion in voice chat would be better.
But if not, then I understand.
btw if you say communism and marxism isn't bad, prove me with one working example of a communist country in economical terms
(hint: venezuela is a fine proof of why communism doesn't work, if you need an example from the present)
What do you mean by "working" and what exactly is the standard for what economic terms legitimize which countries are or are not "working"?
Because in my opinion, no country or economy ever works because they are all littered with problems.
if you don't know what working means, look it up in a thesaurus/dictionary
What happens when I question the dictionary?
but 'working' means that you have economic mobility
Or perhaps a communist society could actually meet the definition of working under the dictionary?
that's something you don't have in a communist economy. that, you have in your country of origin, if it's not communist.
Care to explain deeper?
I'm not sure that I sufficiently understand your point...
Google definition of working: functioning or able to function.
Many communists would argue that communism can meet the definition.
okay, then your next job is to google 'economic mobility'
Overplayed and trite.
@Seven Of Swords that hurts man
@igorbloodscene Under what system gets to determine or value if "economic mobility" is a factor of economic success if perhaps we could have other ways to structure society that may not value that specific aspect?
wot? economy as a definition, is not a result of capitalism. the market, and that people want to trade things, is a part of the human nature. I have knives, you have tables. you need knives, I need tables, we trade.
@igorbloodscene If you tell me to just use Google, I'm going to just use the communist arguments against what you vaule as counter examples against what you want me to look up in the first place lmao. Perhaps you need to put in more work than simply asking people to Google things... Not a very fruitful discussion.
you would want the government to regulate that? that is what communism does.
But under a market of exchanges, people do not barter. In your example, that is barter, not a market.
I tell you to google things because you want to define things. I'm not here to define things, there are commonly accepted ways to do that, one of which is 'google that shit'
Did you read my response? I'm not in favor of any government doing anything lol
a market is where you trade things, money (or anything that resembles a commonly accepted value) is just a means for that
on top of all these phenomenons a working society is built. I'm all for free market, that is not government regulated. if you bring up communism, I'll have to tell you that communism is a government-enforced distribution of the ceased means of production
so if you bring up communist arguments, I'll assume that you are in favor of a government or any other seemingly 'higher force' telling me what value my work has
secondly, this higher entity would want to decide to distribute the fruit of my hard earned labor AT GUNPOINT
taxation is a fine example of that btw
Ok... are you an ancap?
I'm a minarchist
just like that TFM guy
Ok... so there would still be a state in your idea of how you would want society to run then?
You say that you think that taxation is theft. Which means that you hate taxation, and if you suggest that there should still be a state, yet no taxation, your idea won't even get off the ground, or you contradict yourself.
```
Minarchists advocate for a "night-watchman state" that is not responsible for the education, health care, employment or transportation of its citizens, neither makes it any use of natural resources in its territory. All of this is instead held privately or publicly, but is never susceptible to any interference of the state, its law or its representatives. Minarchy is, of course, different from anarchy, since the latter term means a complete absence of a government with all services, including even law and security, done or exercised by people themselves.
```