okay, then your next job is to google 'economic mobility'

@Andrew The Meme King Memes are garbage tbh

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.
```

How is that even a state?

That just sounds like anarcho-capitalism lol

And yes, I read the wikipedia definition already and it was pitiful.

And back to the previous points that I've made, just because I mention Marxian analysis of capital, it doesn't follow that I am a communist. There are many anarchists that find Marx's arguments compelling without succumbing to thinking that a state is the best way to deal with these issues.

so you're an ancap?

No... I hate capitalism lol

I'm not an an-comm either lol

I don't like the state either lol

as far as I could read your wall of text (I've given up at a certain point), I read that you would want to have another 'non-governmental' entity to regulate
in which case I'll have to tell you that governments started out as 'non-governmental' regulatory entities

Keep reading

so you came up with the same defintion of what we have today, only without the term 'government'

no thanks, like I said I have shit to get done. give a quick rundown and I'll respond accordingly

Keep reading my response and let me know where exactly it is that you thought that I said that.

Do what thou will.

you bet

How can someone suggest that the state holding people at gunpoint in some circumstances is bad, yet in others is justified?

Are we picking and choosing arbitrarily which monopolies of violence that the state has are good and which are not?

>the state holding people at gunpoint is bad

>we should have a state for the sake of providing a military or police force which will hold people at gunpoint