Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

All you guys do is agree with each other.

There's no debate, no one challenges each other.

No one grows or discusses other viewpoints.

KMC is no different than other Left wing sites like Reddit or Twitter.

Originally posted by Klaw
All you guys do is agree with each other.

There's no debate, no one challenges each other.

No one grows or discusses other viewpoints.

KMC is no different than other Left wing sites like Reddit or Twitter. Someone seems a bit testy this morning.

Originally posted by Klaw
All you guys do is agree with each other.

There's no debate, no one challenges each other.

No one grows or discusses other viewpoints.

KMC is no different than other Left wing sites like Reddit or Twitter. we're mostly old enough to have discussed other viewpoints and realised the people who have them are wrong or stupid.

Klaw's bitter that he gave the keys to his KMC Discord over to Broly and Broly turned it into a shitshow, well, a bigger shitshow than the safespace echochamber it initially was.

I warned him what would happen.

If any place is a "safespace echochamber" it's KMC.

There, there

So interesting question for you Klaw. How did KMC become a "leftists" echo chamber?

This place was a right wing echo chamber the last few years, only makes sense that it becomes left for a while.

Originally posted by Robtard
Klaw's bitter that he gave the keys to his KMC Discord over to Broly and Broly turned it into a shitshow, well, a bigger shitshow than the safespace echochamber it initially was.

I warned him what would happen. Broly's transmutation powers are a wonder. He is like the King Midas of shite, the Emperor of Excrement. Along with DDM the God of the gullible and gormless, and Surt the subdued it was guaranteed to go awry.Originally posted by Klaw
If any place is a "safespace echochamber" it's KMC. it will be O.K. Eon...Originally posted by Newjak
So interesting question for you Klaw. How did KMC become a "leftists" echo chamber? indeed! Good question.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This place was a right wing echo chamber the last few years, only makes sense that it becomes left for a while. right wing recruiting ground...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This place was a right wing echo chamber the last few years, only makes sense that it becomes left for a while.

Difference is, when Trump won in 2016, one side didn't rage-quit KMC and make a safe-space somewhere else. That's some elementary school "I'm taking my ball and going home!" type of foolery.

People didn't "rage-quit", they were banned.

And the Discord is open to everyone, and we have Left Wing posters on there I talk to.

Originally posted by Klaw
People didn't "rage-quit", they were banned.

And the Discord is open to everyone, and we have Left Wing posters on there I talk to. So all of the right wingers on KMC were permanently banned because of their right wing views?

So can you give specific examples of people that were perm banned because of their right wing views?

Originally posted by Klaw
All you guys do is agree with each other.

There's no debate, no one challenges each other.

No one grows or discusses other viewpoints.

KMC is no different than other Left wing sites like Reddit or Twitter. Originally posted by Klaw
If any place is a "safespace echochamber" it's KMC. Originally posted by Klaw
People didn't "rage-quit", they were banned.

And the Discord is open to everyone, and we have Left Wing posters on there I talk to.

^^Someone woke up with a hair across his cvnt (typical voltron phaggotry)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FF6uKMYYBeA/maxresdefault.jpg

Originally posted by Klaw
All you guys do is agree with each other.

There's no debate, no one challenges each other.

No one grows or discusses other viewpoints.

KMC is no different than other Left wing sites like Reddit or Twitter.

It is the way it is because the "right wing" people couldn't behave themselves. No matter how bad anyone tended to get, they were almost always worse. So they were banned.

It's their fault KMC is the way it is, for better or for worse.

Originally posted by Klaw
People didn't "rage-quit", they were banned.

And the Discord is open to everyone, and we have Left Wing posters on there I talk to. so you got banned for breaking a rule. These are usually swearing a lot, derailing a thread, spamming, or talking about something illegal.

Anyway, you can just create another account and act sensible - oh wait, you did!








Except for the sensible part.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It is the way it is because the "right wing" people couldn't behave themselves. No matter how bad anyone tended to get, they were almost always worse. So they were banned.

It's their fault KMC is the way it is, for better or for worse. Originally posted by Blakemore
so you got banned for breaking a rule. These are usually swearing a lot, derailing a thread, spamming, or talking about something illegal.

Anyway, you can just create another account and act sensible - oh wait, you did!








Except for the sensible part. Bingo!

Originally posted by -Pr-
It is the way it is because the "right wing" people couldn't behave themselves. No matter how bad anyone tended to get, they were almost always worse. So they were banned.

It's their fault KMC is the way it is, for better or for worse. I would like to point out as well that the threshold for getting banned on this site went up significantly after it became a dead forum walking.

I know some of the things people post today would have gotten them almost instantly banned at the height of KMC.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would like to point out as well that the threshold for getting banned on this site went up significantly after it became a dead forum walking.

I know some of the things people post today would have gotten them almost instantly banned at the height of KMC.

Please stay on topic. This has nothing to do with whether or not kmc is predominantly "leftist". any further attempt at derailment, and I will start handing out official warnings.

^^that would have been the mod reply. oh wait, this obvious whiney bait thread would have been instantly locked and/or deleted, so I guess things weren't all that bad when the old mods held sway

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Please stay on topic. This has nothing to do with whether or not kmc is predominantly "leftist". any further attempt at derailment, and I will start handing out official warnings.

^^that would have been the mod reply. oh wait, this obvious whiney bait thread would have been instantly locked and/or deleted, so I guess things weren't all that bad when the old mods held sway

It's not that kmc is an leftist echo chamber it's that totalitarian control is once again on the rise, in my opinion leading to a similar crescendo seen in the 20th century, and people are scared or benefitting from the increased statism.

No poor person, who was just handed a free 1400 dollars is going to want to engage with me about inflationary monetary policy.

Then there's the inertia of public school brainwashing being picked up in adulthood by the state sponsored media/legacy media i.e. msbnc, CNN, fox, whatever.

I'm sure all the people who are leftist here benefit enormously fr the state, from Blake being a total non producer-consumer to whirly benefitting from trade unions using the state to keep whatever faction he's in happy.

My point isn't that they're bad for that, just not special compared to the majority of people outside of kmc.

The gop has had a leftwards slant to reflect that leftification of society.

I don't mind the lefty policies ratcheting us towards fascism tho, the thing that stopped the malfeasance of the USSR wasn't leadership change or reform, it was near total collapse.

This is a sort of right winged accelerationism that can be imagined as a walk home from school.
Imagine there's a shortcut that cuts walking time in half, but on the way through the short cut a huge scary dog is there and he growls at you.
You can either live in fear and walk the long or walk the short way and be equally uncomfortable.
Or you can tease the dog until it barks so much that the neighbor of the dog owner calls the cops.

The neighbor who resorts to the cops/the state is the leftist, the dog is the twitter mob, and the dog owner is leftist thought in it's totality.

I'm the right wing guy who will have a short and quiet walk home.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
It's not that kmc is an leftist echo chamber it's that totalitarian control is once again on the rise, in my opinion leading to a similar crescendo seen in the 20th century, and people are scared or benefitting from the increased statism.

No poor person, who was just handed a free 1400 dollars is going to want to engage with me about inflationary monetary policy.

Then there's the inertia of public school brainwashing being picked up in adulthood by the state sponsored media/legacy media i.e. msbnc, CNN, fox, whatever.

I'm sure all the people who are leftist here benefit enormously fr the state, from Blake being a total non producer-consumer to whirly benefitting from trade unions using the state to keep whatever faction he's in happy.

My point isn't that they're bad for that, just not special compared to the majority of people outside of kmc.

The gop has had a leftwards slant to reflect that leftification of society.

I don't mind the lefty policies ratcheting us towards fascism tho, the thing that stopped the malfeasance of the USSR wasn't leadership change or reform, it was near total collapse.

This is a sort of right winged accelerationism that can be imagined as a walk home from school.
Imagine there's a shortcut that cuts walking time in half, but on the way through the short cut a huge scary dog is there and he growls at you.
You can either live in fear and walk the long or walk the short way and be equally uncomfortable.
Or you can tease the dog until it barks so much that the neighbor of the dog owner calls the cops.

The neighbor who resorts to the cops/the state is the leftist, the dog is the twitter mob, and the dog owner is leftist thought in it's totality.

I'm the right wing guy who will have a short and quiet walk home.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
It's not that kmc is an leftist echo chamber it's that totalitarian control is once again on the rise, in my opinion leading to a similar crescendo seen in the 20th century, and people are scared or benefitting from the increased statism.

No poor person, who was just handed a free 1400 dollars is going to want to engage with me about inflationary monetary policy.

Then there's the inertia of public school brainwashing being picked up in adulthood by the state sponsored media/legacy media i.e. msbnc, CNN, fox, whatever.

I'm sure all the people who are leftist here benefit enormously fr the state, from Blake being a total non producer-consumer to whirly benefitting from trade unions using the state to keep whatever faction he's in happy.

My point isn't that they're bad for that, just not special compared to the majority of people outside of kmc.

The gop has had a leftwards slant to reflect that leftification of society.

I don't mind the lefty policies ratcheting us towards fascism tho, the thing that stopped the malfeasance of the USSR wasn't leadership change or reform, it was near total collapse.

This is a sort of right winged accelerationism that can be imagined as a walk home from school.
Imagine there's a shortcut that cuts walking time in half, but on the way through the short cut a huge scary dog is there and he growls at you.
You can either live in fear and walk the long or walk the short way and be equally uncomfortable.
Or you can tease the dog until it barks so much that the neighbor of the dog owner calls the cops.

The neighbor who resorts to the cops/the state is the leftist, the dog is the twitter mob, and the dog owner is leftist thought in it's totality.

I'm the right wing guy who will have a short and quiet walk home.

Originally posted by Klaw
I've spoken with DDM multiple times, he's a Leftist.

Yeah he quit talking to me because I didn't love his support of status quo nationalized healthcare and he snapped because his graphs were so beautiful.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!


I was trying so hard to be star wars kid or whatever. I love spurious analogies

Edit: do you agree with my larger point that kmc isn't an echo chamber, society is just becoming more left ?

People here are so far Left, that anyone to the right of them (Center Left) is automatically labeled a Right Winger.

Originally posted by Klaw
People here are so far Left, that anyone to the right of them (Center Left) is automatically labeled a Right Winger.

My problem would be no one has ever told me what they think the delineation between right and left is

To me, in an ELI5 style, left equals liking governmental intervention in the economy and the right doesn't. The farther you go either way the more true this is.

I've been ridiculed for that view so who really knows ?!

Yes.

This site loves big Government.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Please stay on topic. This has nothing to do with whether or not kmc is predominantly "leftist". any further attempt at derailment, and I will start handing out official warnings.

^^that would have been the mod reply. oh wait, this obvious whiney bait thread would have been instantly locked and/or deleted, so I guess things weren't all that bad when the old mods held sway

People only listen to bans, so what's the point?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
My problem would be no one has ever told me what they think the delineation between right and left is

To me, in an ELI5 style, left equals liking governmental intervention in the economy and the right doesn't. The farther you go either way the more true this is.

I've been ridiculed for that view so who really knows ?! I think a delineation using only the economy is a way for conservatives to feel better about being conservative.

That way they can ignore all the silly social parts they don't like. Or they can pretend they just care about the economy more because it matters more. This is where a lot of libertarians start to come in.

Originally posted by -Pr-
People only listen to bans, so what's the point?

do they really, though?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
do they really, though?

More than warnings, at least. Though not by much.

Originally posted by Newjak
I think a delineation using only the economy is a way for conservatives to feel better about being conservative.

That way they can ignore all the silly social parts they don't like. Or they can pretend they just care about the economy more because it matters more. This is where a lot of libertarians start to come in.

Yeah, I've seen people say that but they didnt provide an argument.

This is my version of what you said:

Leftists think the political spectrum should include things outside the economy, so they can pretend the economy doesn't matter.

Also in response to your claim, that's why we use the political axis, which has a x and y plane. Left to right deals with economics, up and down deals with the other stuff.

Do you have a critic of that metric as well ?

Originally posted by -Pr-
More than warnings, at least. Though not by much.

I'm very politically right wing and I don't think you or any of the other mods have ever warned me about anything.

The only thing that bothers me is lazy replies, but I get why people do that.

@blake

If you say you believe in the free market then you can't say you support government intervention into the economy, this includes taxation, regulation, protectionism, war, etc.

However, you could say you believe in a fairly free economy, but that statement could apply to modern china, soooooo....

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm very politically right wing and I don't think you or any of the other mods have ever warned me about anything.

The only thing that bothers me is lazy replies, but I get why people do that. Why do they do that?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@blake

If you say you believe in the free market then you can't say you support government intervention into the economy, this includes taxation,

what is the point in even addressing your false dilemma. it's not like you'll be like "wow holy crap i see it! is this what everyone calls 'nuance'? well i'll be damned!"

I prefer the left to the right.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Yeah, I've seen people say that but they didnt provide an argument.

This is my version of what you said:

Leftists think the political spectrum should include things outside the economy, so they can pretend the economy doesn't matter.

Also in response to your claim, that's why we use the political axis, which has a x and y plane. Left to right deals with economics, up and down deals with the other stuff.

Do you have a critic of that metric as well ? I would say you should refer to my previous post about why conservatives try to make the economy so much more important than every other topic put together.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@blake

If you say you believe in the free market then you can't say you support government intervention into the economy, this includes taxation, regulation, protectionism, war, etc.

However, you could say you believe in a fairly free economy, but that statement could apply to modern china, soooooo.... Actually you can. It turns out you can support a free market while acknowledging that there needs be more than just the free market.

Originally posted by ilikecomics


I'm the right wing guy who will have a short and quiet walk home.

By shooting the dog...

Amirite?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Why do they do that?

Well, when I'm being lazy conversationally it's usually because the argument being presented is one I've encountered before by a presenter who wasn't honest, engaging, informed etc.

Then I have to remember that's bad practice.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what is the point in even addressing your false dilemma. it's not like you'll be like "wow holy crap i see it! is this what everyone calls 'nuance'? well i'll be damned!"

A free market is a market where people can trade free of aggression.
If you support any aggression, it's not agree market.

It's like love making vs rape.

If there's any non consenting coercion in love making it's called rape.

No false dilemma.

Originally posted by Newjak
Actually you can. It turns out you can support a free market while acknowledging that there needs be more than just the free market.

Yes, the addition you want on top of the free market is violence.
I'm saying that's immoral. I'm not saying you have to have my morality, but I would like you to tell the truth that adscititious component you want is in fact violence. Then we'll be on the same page

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
By shooting the dog...

Amirite?


Scorched earth, duh.

Seriously tho, I follow the n.a.p.

@ blake

Mussolini said the same thing. The third way is fascism

Every president since at least Wilson is comparable to any of communist or fascist leader.

To me Joe Biden and xi are very comparable.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It is the way it is because the "right wing" people couldn't behave themselves. No matter how bad anyone tended to get, they were almost always worse. So they were banned.

It's their fault KMC is the way it is, for better or for worse.


Seems like they basically lost the plot after Trump lost.

Originally posted by Klaw
I've spoken with DDM multiple times, he's a Leftist.


He has certain left views, but would be a bit of a stretch to label him a leftist.


Originally posted by Klaw
People here are so far Left, that anyone to the right of them (Center Left) is automatically labeled a Right Winger.


Whats your definition of Left?

Most the people still hanging here voted Biden. Is that left to you ?

anything left of fascism is "leftist" to eon

Are there left wing opinions here since I last visited? When did that happen?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Yes, the addition you want on top of the free market is violence.
I'm saying that's immoral. I'm not saying you have to have my morality, but I would like you to tell the truth that adscititious component you want is in fact violence. Then we'll be on the same page The truth is you pretend it's only violence or that the free market itself doesn't have any violent aspects.

It's pretty childish to adopt your stance.

Originally posted by Newjak
The truth is you pretend it's only violence or that the free market itself doesn't have any violent aspects.

It's pretty childish to adopt your stance.

A free market definitionally wouldn't include violence.

@blake

Yes, I believe you should be paid if you provide a service or product to someone.

Taxes are predatory upon private property, production, and mutual trade.

Mail, law enforcement, and healthcare could be provided without violence.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
He has certain left views, but would be a bit of a stretch to label him a leftist.





Whats your definition of Left?

Most the people still hanging here voted Biden. Is that left to you ?

Hard to give a precise definition of what makes a Leftist.

I can tell by talking to someone and seeing where they stand.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm very politically right wing and I don't think you or any of the other mods have ever warned me about anything.

The only thing that bothers me is lazy replies, but I get why people do that.

That's because I have no loyalty to either side. I only care about people causing enough disruption to cross the line that makes the mods take notice.

Originally posted by -Pr-
That's because I have no loyalty to either side. I only care about people causing enough disruption to cross the line that makes the mods take notice.

Yeah, precisely.

I was trying to highlight that if posters play by the rules they mostly stay.

Additionally, if you did harbor some secret antipathy towards the right I can't imagine a right wing poster being inflammatory would get your most angelic side lol

Originally posted by Klaw
People didn't "rage-quit", they were banned.



Attacking Mods, calling them names and daring them to ban you is effectively rage-quitting KMC. So please stop playing shit-games.

Also, not everyone was banned. So really do stop with the shit-games.

Originally posted by Robtard
Attacking Mods, calling them names and daring them to ban you is effectively rage-quitting KMC. So please stop playing shit-games.

Also, not everyone was banned. So really do stop with the shit-games. this silly narrative sways no one Rob. It failed for Klaw as Eon, wxyz etc. It's all they have left.

'member when Bash got banned for 1 day for telling someone to kill themselves despite many other members getting banned for months for the same thing? I certainly do re-'member


Mods suck Bash's dick


btw I don't give a shit about the KMC VS Discord discussion, both suck ass in different ways, Discord is the better app for actual discussion and there's more active chat on the Discord but idk, whatever, there are also open Nazis on the Discord lmao. Anyway KMC isn't far left; KMC is a Democrat echo chamber. None of the KMC left oppose capitalism, so they're not far-left, just auth-left (Whirly is the furthest left as an "old school trade unionist", so he still drains Capitalism's nutsack with great joy and gusto). I oppose capitalism in all of its forms and think it needs to be destroyed for the survival of mankind, so I'd say I'm easily further left than all of the KMC left, combined. All cops are bastards, smash the gender binary, capitalism is the way of weak hungry dogs and their cruel faceless masters. Suck it mother****ers

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
this silly narrative sways no one Rob. It failed for Klaw as Eon, wxyz etc. It's all they have left.

The weirdos.

Originally posted by Scribble
'member when Bash got banned for 1 day for telling someone to kill themselves despite many other members getting banned for months for the same thing? I certainly do re-'member


Mods suck Bash's dick


btw I don't give a shit about the KMC VS Discord discussion, both suck ass in different ways, Discord is the better app for actual discussion and there's more active chat on the Discord but idk, whatever, there are also open Nazis on the Discord lmao. Anyway KMC isn't far left; KMC is a Democrat echo chamber. None of the KMC left oppose capitalism, so they're not far-left, just auth-left (Whirly is the furthest left as an "old school trade unionist", so he still drains Capitalism's nutsack with great joy and gusto). I oppose capitalism in all of its forms and think it needs to be destroyed for the survival of mankind, so I'd say I'm easily further left than all of the KMC left, combined. All cops are bastards, smash the gender binary, capitalism is the way of weak hungry dogs and their cruel faceless masters. Suck it mother****ers

I think capitalism slaps, but I say that meaning strictly free market capitalism, which is very distinct from status quo non free trade capitalism.

In free trade capitalism the capitalists/entrepreneurs masters are always, and can be nothing but, the consumer of the product.

What do you mean by gender binary ?
On a biological level or social norms based on gender ?

I agree with you on cops, but I extend that to all government employees or welfare leeches, statist sycophants.

Love the passion.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
A free market definitionally wouldn't include violence. You need to study up on history if you believe that.

Originally posted by Scribble
'member when Bash got banned for 1 day for telling someone to kill themselves despite many other members getting banned for months for the same thing? I certainly do re-'member


Mods suck Bash's dick


btw I don't give a shit about the KMC VS Discord discussion, both suck ass in different ways, Discord is the better app for actual discussion and there's more active chat on the Discord but idk, whatever, there are also open Nazis on the Discord lmao. Anyway KMC isn't far left; KMC is a Democrat echo chamber. None of the KMC left oppose capitalism, so they're not far-left, just auth-left (Whirly is the furthest left as an "old school trade unionist", so he still drains Capitalism's nutsack with great joy and gusto). I oppose capitalism in all of its forms and think it needs to be destroyed for the survival of mankind, so I'd say I'm easily further left than all of the KMC left, combined. All cops are bastards, smash the gender binary, capitalism is the way of weak hungry dogs and their cruel faceless masters. Suck it mother****ers Yeah it's kind of weird how I get labeled the far left when I'm not even sure how far left I am. Here in America from the viewpoint of conservatives I'm a radical leftists.

Honestly the topics I lean the most left on is things like Climate Change and Income Inequality. I feel though I lean more left on solutions to those problems because we've let them get so bad we're going to need massive changes to start to fix them and help people.

And for a lot of other policies and stances I really am just like can we at least catch to the rest of the modernized world on things like Universal Healthcare. Which doesn't seem that extreme to me.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I think capitalism slaps, but I say that meaning strictly free market capitalism, which is very distinct from status quo non free trade capitalism.

In free trade capitalism the capitalists/entrepreneurs masters are always, and can be nothing but, the consumer of the product.

What do you mean by gender binary ?
On a biological level or social norms based on gender ?

I agree with you on cops, but I extend that to all government employees or welfare leeches, statist sycophants.

Love the passion. Well imo 'capitalism' is antithetical to free trade. Capitalism is what we live under, one holistic system of systems, a top-down centralised system of faux-market trade where small companies are bought up and consumed, the consumer is the ultimate proletariat, and only the feudal billionaire masters succeed.

We don't live under free trade. Capitalism is economic feudalism, a system of masters and slaves. It is all-consuming and all-commanding.

By the gender binary I mean basically whatever, really. Tech can do so much these days. No business of mine tho, if people want to have vat-babies then go for it, families are ****ed up at the best of times so I can't imagine tech doing anything that humans haven't already done to alienate offspring from parent.

I get why religious people are so concerned about trans/gay people but I do not get why not-religious people give a shit. Times are changing. They always have. I welcome the destruction and transformation of traditional gender roles as I do not think they have served humanity efficiently nor ethically well enough. They'll change regardless of my opinion tho.

Also I agree with you regarding all governmental personnel. The state is bad. The state is oppression defined. But I include feudal systems such as global capitalism within that bracket; they're all systems of control, to limit human innovation and creativity. No coercive hierarchy is justified.

Passion is where it's at. I get along with liberals, leftists, conservatives, libertarians, commies, anarchists. I don't mind as long as the discourse is vital and interesting. Those who believe they are correct are always wrong; those who seek knowledge will always find themselves sated in the everlasting conversation of man (lol, perhaps slightly OTT,).

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah it's kind of weird how I get labeled the far left when I'm not even sure how far left I am. Here in America from the viewpoint of conservatives I'm a radical leftists.

Honestly the topics I lean the most left on is things like Climate Change and Income Inequality. I feel though I lean more left on solutions to those problems because we've let them get so bad we're going to need massive changes to start to fix them and help people.

And for a lot of other policies and stances I really am just like can we at least catch to the rest of the modernized world on things like Universal Healthcare. Which doesn't seem that extreme to me. You strike me as general left, but fairly left as far as it goes. We've agreed on many issues, iirc. American politics muddies the waters; everyone is either a commie or a fash if they stray out of perfect party politics.

Politically I identify as a Pessimist. I do not think any system will create a perfect outcome. The world, and humans, are likely ****ed, by now. Capitalism (the ruling global feudal economic system) is going to drain us dry regardless before we have a chance to combat it. The only option is revolution, true and violent revolution, and that will come at the cost of many human lives and may not even work anyway.

Hence why I'm fine dealing with issues in context. I can debate the finer details all I like, for fun, but chances are we're all screwed. Democracy is capitalism. Incremental change is useless. Revolution equals chaos and death. Welcome to Planet Earth.

Originally posted by Newjak
You need to study up on history if you believe that.

History has nothing to do with it. If there is coercion, it's not a free market. Period

If there's coercion, it's still a so called economic system, that can have market like tendencies, but is not free.

Tax is not violence😩Originally posted by ilikecomics
@blake

Yes, I believe you should be paid if you provide a service or product to someone.

Taxes are predatory upon private property, production, and mutual trade.

Mail, law enforcement, and healthcare could be provided without violence.

Originally posted by Robtard
Attacking Mods, calling them names and daring them to ban you is effectively rage-quitting KMC. So please stop playing shit-games.

Also, not everyone was banned. So really do stop with the shit-games.

You first.

All that is long passed, unless we have the temerity to compare such ancient skullduggery with reparations, extraterritoriality, charges for maintaining armies of occupation, absconding with property, grabbing of natural resources, control of arteries of trade and other modern techniques of conquest. It may be argued that even if taxation had an unsavory beginning it could have straightened itself out and become a decent and useful citizen. So, we must apply ourselves to the theory and practices of taxation to prove that it is in fact the kind of thing above described.

First, as to method of collection, taxation falls into two categories, direct and indirect. Indirect taxes are so called because they reach the state by way of private collectors, while direct taxes arrive without bypass. The former levies are attached to goods and services before they reach the consumer, while the latter are in the main demands upon accumulations of wealth.

It will be seen that indirect taxation is a permission-to-live price. You cannot find in the marketplace a single satisfaction to which a number of these taxes are not attached, hidden in the price, and you are under compulsion either to pay them or go without; since going without amounts to depriving yourself of the meaning of life, or even of life itself, you pay.

The inevitability of this charge on existence is expressed in the popular association of death and taxes. And it is this very characteristic that commends indirect taxation to the state, so that when you examine the prices of things you live by, you are astounded by the disproportion between the cost of production and the charge for permission to buy. Somebody has put the number of taxes carried by a loaf of bread at over one hundred; obviously, some are not ascertainable, for it would be impossible to allocate to each loaf its share of taxes on the broom used in the bakery, on the axle-grease used on the delivery wagon.

Whiskey is perhaps the most notorious example of the way products have been transmuted from satisfactions into tax gatherers. The manufacturing cost of a gallon of whiskey, for which the consumer pays around twenty dollars, is less than a half-dollar; the spread is partly accounted for in the costs of distribution, but most of the money which passes over the counter goes to maintain city, county, state and national officials.

The hue and cry over the cost of living would make more sense if it were directed at taxation, the largest single item in the cost. It should be noted too that though the cost-of-living problem affects mainly the poor, yet it is on this segment of society that the incidence of indirect taxation falls most heavily. This is necessarily so; since those in the lower earning brackets constitute the major portion of society they must account for the greatest share of consumption, and therefore for the greatest share of taxation. The state recognizes this fact in levying on goods of widest use. A tax on salt, no matter how small comparatively, yields much more than a tax on diamonds, and is of greater significance socially and economically.

It is not the size of the yield, nor the certainty of collection, which gives indirect taxation preeminence in the state's scheme of appropriation. Its most commendable quality is that of being surreptitious. It is taking, so to speak, while the victim is not looking. Those who strain themselves to give taxation a moral character are under obligation to explain the state's preoccupation with hiding taxes in the price of goods. Is there a confession of guilt in that? In recent years, in its search for additional revenue, the state has been tinkering with a sales tax, an outright and unequivocal permission-to-live price; wiser solons have opposed this measure on the ground of political expediency. Why? If the state serves a good purpose the producers will hardly object to paying its keep.

Follow an importation of raw silk, from importer to cleaner, to spinner, to weaver, to finisher, to manufacturer, to wholesaler, to retailer, each one adding his mark-up to the price paid his predecessor, and you will see that in the price milady pays for her gown there is much more than the tariff schedule demands. This fact alone helps to make merchants and manufacturers indifferent to the evils of protection.Merely as a matter of method, not with deliberate intent, indirect taxation yields a profit of proportions to private collectors, and for this reason opposition to the levies could hardly be expected from that corner. When the tax is paid in advance of the sale it becomes an element of cost which must be added to all other costs in computing price. As the expected profit is a percentage of the total outlay, it will be seen that the tax itself becomes a source of gain. Where the merchandise must pass through the hands of several processors and distributors, the profits pyramided on the tax can run up to as much as, if not more than, the amount collected by the state. The consumer pays the tax plus the compounded profits. Particularly notorious in this regard are customs duties.

Tacit support for indirect taxation arises from another byproduct. Where a considerable outlay in taxes is a prerequisite for engaging in a business, large accumulations of capital have a distinct competitive advantage, and these capitalists could hardly be expected to advocate a lowering of the taxes. Any farmer can make whiskey, and many of them do; but the necessary investment in revenue stamps and various license fees makes the opening of a distillery and the organizing of distributive agencies a business only for large capital.

Taxation has forced the individually owned and congenial grog shop to give way to the palatial bar under mortgage to the brewery or distillery. Likewise, the manufacture of cigarettes is concentrated in the hands of a few giant corporations by the help of our tax system; nearly three-quarters of the retail price of a package of cigarettes represents an outlay in taxes. It would be strange indeed if these interests were to voice opposition to such indirect taxes (which they never do) and the uninformed, inarticulate and unorganized consumer is forced to pay the higher price resulting from limited competition.

Direct taxes differ from indirect taxes not only in the manner of collection but also in the more important fact that they cannot be passed on; those who pay them cannot demand reimbursement from others. In the main, the incidence of direct taxation falls on incomes and accumulations rather than on goods in the course of exchange. You are taxed on what you have, not on something you buy; on the proceeds of enterprise or the returns from services already rendered, not on anticipated revenue. Hence there is no way of shifting the burden. The payer has no recourse.

The clear-cut direct taxes are those levied on incomes, inheritances, gifts, land values. It will be seen that such appropriations lend themselves to soak-the-rich propaganda, and find support in the envy of the incompetent, the bitterness of poverty, the sense of injustice which our monopoly economy engenders. Direct taxation has been advocated since colonial times (along with universal suffrage), as the necessary implementation of democracy, as the essential instrument of "leveling."

The opposition of the rich to direct taxation added virulence to the reformers who plugged for it. In normal times the state is unable to overcome this well-knit, articulate, and resourceful opposition. But, when war or the need of ameliorating mass poverty strains the purse of the state to the limit, and further indirect impositions are impossible or threaten social unrest, the opposition must give way. The state never relinquishes entirely the prerogatives it acquires during an "emergency," and so, after a series of wars and depressions, direct taxation became a fixture of our fiscal policy, and those upon whom it falls must content themselves to whittling down the levies or trying to transfer them from shoulder to shoulder.

Even as it was predicted, during the debates on the income tax in the early part of the century, the soak-the-rich label turns out to be a wicked misnomer. It was impossible for the state to contain itself once this instrument of getting additional revenue was put into its hands. Income is income, whether it stems from dividends, bootlegging operations, gambling profits or plain wages. As the expenses of the state mount, as they always do, legal inhibitions and considerations of justice or mercy are swept aside, and the state dips its hands into every pocket. So, in Philadelphia, the political power demands that the employer shall deduct an amount from the pay envelope and hand it over. The soak-the-rich principle has been applied on a large scale to the lowliest paid worker, not only by deductions from wages, but more so through the so-called social security taxes. These, by the way, show up the utter immorality of political power.

Social security taxation is nothing but a tax on wages, in its entirety, and was deliberately and maliciously misnamed. Even the part which is "contributed" by the employer is ultimately paid by the worker in the price of the goods he consumes, for it is obvious that this part is merely a cost of operation and is passed on, with a mark-up. The revenue from social security taxes is not set aside for the payment of social "benefits," but is thrown into the general tax fund, subject to any appropriation, and when an old-age pittance is ultimately allowed it is paid out of the then-current tax collections. It is in no way comparable to insurance, by which fiction it made its way into our fiscal policy, but it is a direct tax on wages.

There are more people in the low-income brackets than in the high brackets; there are more small bequests than large ones. Therefore, in the aggregate, those least able to meet the burden of soak-the-rich taxes bear the brunt of them. The attempt to offset this inequity by a system of graduations is unreal. Even a small tax on an income of $1,000 a year will cause the payer some hardship, while a 50% tax on $50,000 leaves something to live on comfortably. There is a vast difference between doing without a new automobile and making a patched-up pair of pants do more service.

It should be remembered, too, that the worker's income is almost always confined to wages, which are a matter of record, while large incomes are mainly derived from business or gambling operations, and are not so easily ascertainable; whether from intent to avoid paying the full tax, or from the necessary legal ambiguities which make the exact amount a matter of conjecture or bookkeeping, those with large incomes are favored. It is the poor who are soaked most heavily by soak-the-rich taxes.

Taxes of all kinds discourage production. Man works to satisfy his desires, not to support the state. When the results of his labors are taken from him, whether by brigands or organized society, his inclination is to limit his production to the amount he can keep and enjoy.

During the war, when the payroll deduction was introduced, workers got to figuring their "take home" pay, and to laying off when this net, after taxes, showed no increase comparable to the extra work it would cost; leisure is also a satisfaction. A prizefighter refuses another lucrative engagement because the additional revenue would bring his income for the year into a higher tax bracket. In like manner, every businessman must take into consideration, when weighing the risk and the possibility of gain in a new enterprise, the certainty of a tax offset in the event of success, and too often he is discouraged from going ahead. In all the data on national progress the items that can never be reported are: the volume of business choked off by income taxes; and the size of capital accumulations aborted by inheritance taxes.

While we are on the subject of discouragement of production by taxation, we should not overlook the greater weight of indirect taxes, even though it is not so obvious. The production level of a nation is determined by the purchasing power of its citizens, and to the extent that this power is sapped by levies, to that extent is the production level lowered. It is a silly sophism, and thoroughly indecent, to maintain that what the state collects it spends, and that therefore there is no lowering of total purchasing power.

Thieves also spend their loot, with much more abandon than the rightful owners would have spent it, and on the basis of spending one could make out a case for the social value of thievery. It is production, not spending, that begets production. It is only by the feeding of marketable contributions into the general fund of wealth that the wheels of industry are speeded up.

Contrariwise, every deduction from this general fund of wealth slows down industry, and every levy on savings discourages the accumulation of capital. Why work when there is nothing in it? Why go into business to support politicians?

In principle, as the framers of the Constitution realized, the direct tax is most vicious, for it directly denies the sanctity of private property. By its very surreptition the indirect tax is a backhanded recognition of the right of the individual to his earnings; the state sneaks up on the owner, so to speak, and takes what it needs on the grounds of necessity, but it does not have the temerity to question the right of the owner to his goods. The direct tax, however, boldly and unashamedly proclaims the prior right of the state to all property. Private ownership becomes a temporary and revocable stewardship.

The Jeffersonian ideal of inalienable rights is thus liquidated, and substituted for it is the Marxist concept of state supremacy. It is by this fiscal policy, rather than by violent revolution, or by an appeal to reason, or by popular education, or by way of any ineluctable historic forces, that the substance of socialism is realized. Notice how the centralization hoped for by Alexander Hamilton has been achieved since the advent of the federal income tax, how the contemplated union of independent commonwealths is effectively dissolved. The commonwealths are reduced to parish status, the individual no longer is a citizen of his community but is a subject of the federal government.

A basic immorality becomes the center of a vortex of immoralities. When the state invades the right of the individual to the products of his labors it appropriates an authority which is contrary to the nature of things and therefore establishes an unethical pattern of behavior, for itself and those upon whom its authority is exerted. Thus, the income tax has made the state a partner in the proceeds of crime; the law cannot distinguish between incomes derived from production and incomes derived from robbery; it has no concern with the source.

Likewise, this denial of ownership arouses a resentment which breaks out into perjury and dishonesty. Men who in their personal affairs would hardly think of such methods, or who would be socially ostracized for practicing them, are proud of, and are complimented for, evasion of the income tax laws; it is considered proper to engage the shrewdest minds for that purpose. More degrading even is the encouragement by bribes of mutual spying. No other single measure in the history of our country has caused a comparable disregard of principle in public affairs, or has had such a deteriorating effect on morals.

To make its way into the good will of its victims, taxation has surrounded itself with doctrines of justification. No law which lacks public approval or acquiescence is enforceable, and to gain such support it must address itself to our sense of correctness. This is particularly necessary for statutes authorizing the taking of private property.

Until recent times taxation rested its case on the need of maintaining the necessary functions of government, generally called "social services." But, such is the nature of political power that the area of its activity is not self-contained; its expansion is in proportion to the lack of resistance it meets. Resistance to the exercise of this power reflects a spirit of self-reliance, which in turn is dependent upon a sense of economic security. When the general economy falls, the inclination of a people, bewildered by lack of understanding as to basic causes, is to turn to any medicine man who promises relief. The politician serves willingly in this capacity; his fee is power, implemented with funds.

Obscured from public view are the enterprises of political power at the bottom of the economic malady, such as monopoly privileges, wars, and taxation itself. Therefore the promise of relief is sufficient unto itself, and the bargain is made. Thus it has come about that the area of political power has gradually encroached upon more and more social activities, and with every expansion another justification for taxation was advanced.

The current philosophy is tending toward the identification of politics with society, the eradication of the individual as the essential unit and the substitution of a metaphysical whole, and hence the elimination of the concept of private property. Taxation is now justified not by the need of revenue for the carrying on of specific social services, but as the necessary means for unspecified social betterment.

Both postulates of taxation are in fact identical, in that they stem from acceptance of a prior right of the state to the products of labor; but for purposes of analysis it is best to treat them separately.

what the ****

Taxation is all made-up capitalist funny-talk

Taxation for social services hints at an equitable trade. It suggests a quid pro quo, a relationship of justice. But, the essential condition of trade, that it be carried on willingly, is absent from taxation; its very use of compulsion removes taxation from the field of commerce and puts it squarely into the field of politics. Taxes cannot be compared to dues paid to a voluntary organization for such services as one expects from membership, because the choice of withdrawal does not exist. In refusing to trade one may deny oneself a profit, but the only alternative to paying taxes is jail. The suggestion of equity in taxation is spurious. If we get anything for the taxes we pay it is not because we want it; it is forced on us.

In respect to social services a community may be compared to a large office building in which the occupants, carrying on widely differing businesses, make use of common conveniences, such as elevator transportation, cleaning, heating, and so on. The more tenants in the building, the more dependent are they all on these overall specializations, and at a pro rata fee the operators of the building supply them; the fee is included in the room rent. Each of the tenants is enabled to carry on his business more efficiently because he is relieved of his share of the overall duties.

Just so are the citizens of a community better able to carry on their several occupations because the streets are maintained, the fire department is on guard, the police department provides protection to life and property. When a society is organizing, as in a frontier town, the need for these overall services is met by volunteer labor. The road is kept open by its users, there is a volunteer fire department, the respected elder performs the services of a judge.

As the town grows these extra-curricular jobs become too onerous and too complicated for volunteers, whose private affairs must suffer by the increasing demands, and the necessity of hiring specialists arises. To meet the expense, it is claimed, compulsory taxation must be resorted to, and the question is, why must the residents be compelled to pay for being relieved of work which they formerly performed willingly? Why is coercion a correlative of taxation?

It is not true that the services would be impossible without taxation; that assertion is denied by the fact that the services appear before taxes are introduced. The services come because there is need for them. Because there is need for them they are paid for, in the beginning, with labor and, in a few instances, with voluntary contributions of goods and money; the trade is without compulsion and therefore equitable. Only when political power takes over the management of these services does the compulsory tax appear. It is not the cost of the services which calls for taxation, it is the cost of maintaining political power.

In the case of the overall services in the building the cost is met by a rent payment, apportioned according to the size and location of the space occupied, and the amount is fixed by the only equitable arbiter of value, competition. In the growing community, likewise, the cost of social services could be equitably met by a charge against occupancy of sites within the community, and this charge would be automatically met because it is set by the higgling and haggling of the market.

When we trace the value of these locations to their source we find that they spring from the presence and activity of population; the more people competing for the use of these locations the higher their value. It is also true that with the growth of population comes an increasing need for social services, and it would seem that the values arising from integration should in justice be applied to the need which also arises from it. In a polity free from political coercion such an arrangement would apply, and in some historical instances of weak political power we find that land rent was used in this social manner.

All history points to the economic purpose of political power. It is the effective instrument of exploitative practices. Generally speaking, the evolution of political exploitation follows a fixed pattern: hit-and-run robbery, regular tribute, slavery, rent collections. In the final stage, and after long experience, rent collections become the prime proceeds of exploitation and the political power necessary thereto is supported by levies on production. Centuries of accommodation have inured us to the business, custom and law have given it an aura of rectitude; the public appropriation of private property by way of taxation and the private appropriation of public property by way of rent collections become unquestioned institutions. They are of our mores.

And so, as social integrations grow and the need for overall services grows apace, we turn to taxation by long habit. We know no other way. Why, then, do we object to paying taxes? Can it be that we are, in our hearts, conscious of an iniquity? There are the conveniences of streets, kept clean and lighted, of water supply, sanitation, and so on, all making our stay in the community convenient and comfortable, and the cost must be defrayed. The cost is defrayed, out of our wages. But then we find that for a given amount of effort we earn no more than we would in a community which does not have these advantages. Out at the margin, the rate per hour, for the same kind of work, is the same as in the metropolis.

Capital earns no less, per dollar of investment, on Main Street than on Broadway. It is true that in the metropolis we have more opportunities to work, and we can work harder. In the village the tempo is slower; we work less and earn less. But, when we put against our greater earnings the rent-and-tax cost of the big city, do we have any more in satisfactions? We need not be economists to sense the incongruity.

Taxation for services is theft. Market-centric commerce is coercion. Capitalism is slavery

But that is not the argument of ability-to-pay energumens. They insist that the state is a contributing factor in production, and that its services ought properly to be paid for; the measure of the value of these services is the income of its citizens, and a graduated tax on these incomes is only due compensation. If earnings reflect the services of the state, it follows that larger earnings result from more services, and the logical conclusion is that the state is a better servant of the rich than of the poor. That may be so, but it is doubtful that the tax experts wish to convey that information; what they want us to believe is that the state helps us to better our circumstances.

That idea gives rise to some provocative questions. For the tax he pays does the farmer enjoy more favorable growing weather? Or the merchant a more active market? Is the skill of the mechanic improved by anything the state does with what it takes from him? How can the state quicken the imagination of the creative genius, or add to the wisdom of the philosopher? When the state takes a cut from the gambler is the latter's luck bettered? Are the earnings of the prostitute increased because her trade is legalized and taxed? Just what part does the state play in production to warrant its rake-off? The state does not give; it merely takes.

All this argument, however, is a concession to the obfuscation with which custom, law and sophistry have covered up the true character of taxation. There cannot be a good tax nor a just one; every tax rests its case on compulsion.

Of course taxation is theft, only retards think otherwise.

Taxation is theft therefore levying a tax on your goods is literally stealing from the supposed 'customer'

Monetary exchange for a basic good (food, water, shelter) is direct theft from the individual. Any society that does not include free food, water or accommodation is a blightful, hellish landscape indeed, as anti-liberty as one can get

I really hope that eventually libertarians and anarcho-capitalists realise that their journey ends in left-anarchism lol. If you follow the ethics it all leads back home my brothers. All ethics truly followed lead to a form of left-anarchism that annihilates even the need for a democratic sensibility. Democracy is mass autocracy.

I don't support Democracy.

Originally posted by Scribble
Taxation is theft therefore levying a tax on your goods is literally stealing from the supposed 'customer'

Monetary exchange for a basic good (food, water, shelter) is direct theft from the individual. Any society that does not include free food, water or accommodation is a blightful, hellish landscape indeed, as anti-liberty as one can get

you don't think people should trade ?

Originally posted by Scribble
I really hope that eventually libertarians and anarcho-capitalists realise that their journey ends in left-anarchism lol. If you follow the ethics it all leads back home my brothers. All ethics truly followed lead to a form of left-anarchism that annihilates even the need for a democratic sensibility. Democracy is mass autocracy.

What's the anarchist left ethic anarchists on the right are missing ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
you don't think people should trade ? I don't see how monetary-based trading can be justified ethically, no. Do I think people will do it anyway? Sure. But it's an invented hierarchy that proliferates into debt and slavery, as exists in the modern world.

A truly free market is free from the blight of mutual expected currency. Anything else is by definition coercion, unless basic needs are unequivocally provided to all.

True free trade can only exist in a system with absolute basic needs provided for. Otherwise it is, definitively, slavery.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What's the anarchist left ethic anarchists on the right are missing ? Their opposition to capitalism. "Right-anarchists" are fine for companies to do their thing and exploit basic resources to gather capital. They are fine with individuals gaining capital to assert over others as long as it isn't gobermint. That is not anarchism: that is capitalism.

Capitalism is the state. It is the most honest, ruthless form of the State that humanity has ever seen. It is utterly, brutally a global entity now. There are no country-states any longer. There is only one holistic system of systems

Originally posted by Scribble
I don't see how monetary-based trading can be justified ethically, no. Do I think people will do it anyway? Sure. But it's an invented hierarchy that proliferates into debt and slavery, as exists in the modern world.

A truly free market is free from the blight of mutual expected currency. Anything else is by definition coercion, unless basic needs are unequivocally provided to all.

True free trade can only exist in a system with absolute basic needs provided for. Otherwise it is, definitively, slavery.

Monetary based trade creates a price system. This price matrix is a signal to producers on how much they should produce.
Socialism doesn't have a price system and therefore leads to permanent shortages.

Prices reflect scarcity, so we don't over produce and waste all of our resources.

The reason production is wasteful now is because our currency have been socialized since 1913.

Originally posted by Scribble
Capitalism is the state. It is the most honest, ruthless form of the State that humanity has ever seen. It is utterly, brutally a global entity now. There are no country-states any longer. There is only one holistic system of systems

That's what the state wants you to think.


EBay is anarchic capitalism. People trade with mutual consent.
No cops involved.
Do you think EBay is evil ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Monetary based trade creates a price system. This price matrix is a signal to producers on how much they should produce.
Socialism doesn't have a price system and therefore leads to permanent shortages.

Prices reflect scarcity, so we don't over produce and waste all of our resources.

The reason production is wasteful now is because our currency have been socialized since 1913. The arbitrary economic system always results in State-like oppression, based on whims of the 'market', which is easily manipulated. No market is free. It will always become a feudal system.

Resource availability indicates to utilise a communist-based approach to basic needs. Perhaps when all basic needs (food, water, shelter) are provided, it may be possible. Who knows (I don't).

Tech allows us to do many things, but imo markets always tend towards Statist systems.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's what the state wants you to think.


EBay is anarchic capitalism. People trade with mutual consent.
No cops involved.
Do you think EBay is evil ? I don't believe in Good and Evil. Only functional and nonfunctional. And even a shadow market system like eBay will become a State if isolated economically. With time, it will become nonfunctional. Nothing is free from rust.

Originally posted by Scribble
The arbitrary economic system always results in State-like oppression, based on whims of the 'market', which is easily manipulated. No market is free. It will always become a feudal system.

Resource availability indicates to utilise a communist-based approach to basic needs. Perhaps when all basic needs (food, water, shelter) are provided, it may be possible. Who knows (I don't).

Tech allows us to do many things, but imo markets always tend towards Statist systems.
I don't believe in Good and Evil. Only functional and nonfunctional. And even a shadow market system like eBay will become a State if isolated economically. With time, it will become nonfunctional. Nothing is free from rust.

You think money is a state constructed phenomena and not naturally occurring ? That's an interesting take.

Do you believe in people trading or not ?

The only way to deal with resource scarcity is a price system built on private property, mutual consent, and pricing.

Otherwise what's known as the tragedy of the commons takes place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Markets are the opposite of statism. Trade = voluntary, statism = territorial monopoly of violence. Diametrically opposite.

If youre a consequentialist then why not look at how when free markets were introduced in the 17th century the overall prosperity of humanity increased.

We also have the USSR vs. america (america IS NOT a free market, but it's freer than the USSR) or the twin experiment of north and south Korea.
It's the same population genetically and yet people from nk are three inches shorter. Then compare gdp per capita of the two.
Nk = 1300
SK = 31,000

Then ask why the big difference. To me the answer is obvious, south Korea has a freer market.

Do you think sk is more evil than nk because people in sk trade more amongst themselves ?

That would be an odd view as well.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You think money is a state constructed phenomena and not naturally occurring ? That's an interesting take.

Do you believe in people trading or not ?

The only way to deal with resource scarcity is a price system built on private property, mutual consent, and pricing.

Otherwise what's known as the tragedy of the commons takes place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Markets are the opposite of statism. Trade = voluntary, statism = territorial monopoly of violence. Diametrically opposite.

If youre a consequentialist then why not look at how when free markets were introduced in the 17th century the overall prosperity of humanity increased.

We also have the USSR vs. america (america IS NOT a free market, but it's freer than the USSR) or the twin experiment of north and south Korea.
It's the same population genetically and yet people from nk are three inches shorter. Then compare gdp per capita of the two.
Nk = 1300
SK = 31,000

Then ask why the big difference. To me the answer is obvious, south Korea has a freer market.

Do you think sk is more evil than nk because people in sk trade more amongst themselves ?

That would be an odd view as well. Oh it's entirely naturally occurring. Everything is. Murder is naturally occurring. Doesn't mean I think it's good (i.e., functional).

People trading is never going away, but to make it ethical, basic needs must be provided for somehow. Only then do we avoid wage slavery and slavery in general.

We don't have resource scarcity in modern society. Scarcity is a luxury survival tax levied by the power-class.

Markets ARE a form of state, absolutely, if basic needs are not provided for. All anarchism is left-anarchism.


And as I already said, I don't deal in Good and Evil. Only functional and nonfunctional. To me, neither SK nor NK nor any state is truly functional. It is doomed to collapse and thus catastrophe, eventually.

The only fix is revolution. Literal heads on stakes time.

Originally posted by cdtm
The only fix is revolution. Literal heads on stakes time. Well, exactly. That's how it goes. I'm not into violence so I won't partake. But we either full-on revolt with heads on ****ing stakes, or the planet kills us. It's a pretty basic path by now.


Well, maybe I will partake, but as an anarchist, I'll be shot in the head eventually.

And as a trans person, if the revolt is reactionary, I'll probably be raped, murdered and disposed of via sewer. But such is the chaos of life. We degenerates get the flaming pike one way or the other.




_______________
btw, as I am a UK user, I must sign off for sleepy-byes, as commanded by Daddy Boris. Goodnight

We disagree on quite a bit. I don't think I'll change your mind tonight.

From my pov you've already made the biggest jump in thinking in terms of anarchism, which is the most important thing.

If this were a religious debate and we were both atheists, but you believe in ghosts and I didnt that distinction wouldn't bother me as bad as the the distinction between atheism and theism.

Are you going to get Michael malice's new book about anarchy ?
https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Handbook-Michael-Malice/dp/B095DVF8FJ

The long posts are all one post. Kmc has a 10 k character limit and that one in it's entirety is around 41k.

It's a piece of writing from Frank chodorov. Way to be not intellectually curious.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The long posts are all one post. Kmc has a 10 k character limit and that one in it's entirety is around 41k.

It's a piece of writing from Frank chodorov. Way to be not intellectually curious.


If you can't summarise your points then that says a lot as well.

We read according to our own intellectual curiousness, not what you dictate to us is intelligent reading.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The long posts are all one post. Kmc has a 10 k character limit and that one in it's entirety is around 41k.

It's a piece of writing from Frank chodorov. Way to be not intellectually curious.

I'm sure everyone is super impressed. do you feel smart tho?

Originally posted by Klaw
Hard to give a precise definition of what makes a Leftist.

I can tell by talking to someone and seeing where they stand.


If you're complaining about only Leftists being allowed here, then you should have some idea/standard of what that entails.

I think everyone agrees Bernie and AOC are leftists. But I feel like you're including anyone anti-Trump or anti-Republican in that label.

Curiousness. You mean, curiosity.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Curiousness. You mean, curiosity. I think it's an Americanism like burglarized for burgled or robbed Blake

Damn murkans

Originally posted by Blakemore
Damn murkans burglarized is a very funny word though. I love the Americans ability to create verbs by adding ize

and you sound like you're having a neurological event when you say "schedule", in that silly way that you say it

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
and you sound like you're having a neurological event when you say "schedule", in that silly way that you say it schedulized it must be a real word!

Did ilikecomics have a breakdown or something?

I just see walls of text after text.

Shejule, not she Julie. 😬

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You think money is a state constructed phenomena and not naturally occurring ? That's an interesting take.

Do you believe in people trading or not ?

The only way to deal with resource scarcity is a price system built on private property, mutual consent, and pricing.

Otherwise what's known as the tragedy of the commons takes place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Markets are the opposite of statism. Trade = voluntary, statism = territorial monopoly of violence. Diametrically opposite.

If youre a consequentialist then why not look at how when free markets were introduced in the 17th century the overall prosperity of humanity increased.

We also have the USSR vs. america (america IS NOT a free market, but it's freer than the USSR) or the twin experiment of north and south Korea.
It's the same population genetically and yet people from nk are three inches shorter. Then compare gdp per capita of the two.
Nk = 1300
SK = 31,000

Then ask why the big difference. To me the answer is obvious, south Korea has a freer market.

Do you think sk is more evil than nk because people in sk trade more amongst themselves ?

That would be an odd view as well. I like how you think trade is automatically voluntary. As if trade can't be forced by a non-government entity.

Originally posted by Newjak
I like how you think trade is automatically voluntary. As if trade can't be forced by a non-government entity.

Trade = voluntary

If it isn't voluntary, it isn't free trade. It's theft.

Sex = voluntary

If there isn't consent, it's rape.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Trade = voluntary

If it isn't voluntary, it isn't free trade. It's theft.

Sex = voluntary

If there isn't consent, it's rape. So if someone is unconscious and receiving medical treatment to save their lives that is theft?

Originally posted by Newjak
So if someone is unconscious and receiving medical treatment to save their lives that is theft?

You wouldn't be mad if you woke up in a bath tub with your kidneys removed ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
You wouldn't be mad if you woke up in a bath tub with your kidneys removed ? So instead of answering the question you pivot and change the scenario being asked about?

Originally posted by Newjak
So instead of answering the question you pivot and change the scenario being asked about?

I'm saying consent is important in terms of trade - similar to other areas, and you're making up extenuating medical circumstances.

Some people have DNR orders, so giving them 'life saving medical service' could be against their wishes.

Or what If you give an emergency blood transfusion to a non consenting Jehovah's witness ?

They believe blood transfusions are sinful and avoid them at all costs.

You're really eager to position me as a sophist while constantly giving me weak arguments.

So either deal with the content of what's being discussed and by proxy improve the strength of your arguments, or admit you like to use subtle manipulations, like above quote, to not deal with my contentions.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm saying consent is important in terms of trade - similar to other areas, and you're making up extenuating medical circumstances.

Some people have DNR orders, so giving them 'life saving medical service' could be against their wishes.

Or what If you give an emergency blood transfusion to a non consenting Jehovah's witness ?

They believe blood transfusions are sinful and avoid them at all costs.

You're really eager to position me as a sophist while constantly giving me weak arguments.

So either deal with the content of what's being discussed and by proxy improve the strength of your arguments, or admit you like to use subtle manipulations, like above quote, to not deal with my contentions. This is a long winded way of saying you don't want to answer the base level part of the question lol.

Seriously though you say trade must be voluntary in order for it to be trade. All I did was a present a real scenario that happens to many people where trade isn't voluntary but still deemed necessary.

For instance often times you're unconscious and in need of medical treatment your ability to influence that treatment is not voluntary at all. You can't choose an ambulance, you can't choose which hospital you're taken to, you can't choose which treatments are given to you or not.

So the idea that trade is only voluntary therefore immune to the idea of violence is incorrect. I just chose the medical example because I though you would be able to understand it better.

You can also extend this to other things as well. For instance you might say the exchange of food or money/services is voluntary but considering we need food to live there many variables that could force someone to engage in trade for food simply because we can't live without and not all of these variables involve the government either.

You basically just made a no scotsman fallacy for the sake of keeping your argument's foundation intact. No true trade can ever be violent lol

Originally posted by Klaw
All you guys do is agree with each other.

There's no debate, no one challenges each other.

No one grows or discusses other viewpoints.

KMC is no different than other Left wing sites like Reddit or Twitter. You're right, it is a left wing echo chamber now. But you have your conservative buttbuddies to blame for that. They talked so much shit in the days leading up to the election that they're too afraid to stay on the site and take their lumps, so they fled.

When Trump won there was still a left-wing presence on the site. Apparently 90% of the conservatives on this board, and contrarians like my good friend Dadudemon, are cowards though.

Hey, I admitted to voting for Trump and I'm still here, they don't represent all of us.

Granted, not sure how much of a Trumper I can be past the vote. Had a conversation around the firepit with a friend who also voted, and essentially admitted he had no idea what he was thinking. Couldn't really deny I could relate...

Originally posted by cdtm
Hey, I admitted to voting for Trump and I'm still here, they don't represent all of us.

Granted, not sure how much of a Trumper I can be past the vote. Had a conversation around the firepit with a friend who also voted, and essentially admitted he had no idea what he was thinking. Couldn't really deny I could relate...

If you're pro secession and anti big government it made sense to vote for trump to a degree, but some people went full retard and thought trump was orange jesus

Originally posted by Newjak
I think a delineation using only the economy is a way for conservatives to feel better about being conservative.


I see that left wingers here are just as ignorant as ever. Dude, we don't have to try to "feel better about ourselves" . It comes naturally to us because we aren't the ones who support the murder of unborn children in the name of so-called "women's rights". A true conservative merey wants the god**** government to stay the f*** out of our lives. The only legitimate roles of government are:


1. to protect our God-given, inalienable rights (government does not grant them in a republic, they are only supposed to protect them).


2. To make sure our country and its borders are protected,. Which means having a strong military and border patrol.


3. To punish criminals/evil-doers.

Period.

Social issues? Oh, you mean like how there is an average of 3500 unborn children murdered in this supposedly "Christian" nation every single damn day? We don't shy away from that issue at all. In fact, to a true Conservative, that is THE most pressing issue in this country, even moreso than the 2nd amendment being threatened.


Or when you say "social issues" are you referring to retarded things like men being able to compete in women's sports or BLM neo-marxist bullshit?

Funny, it appears to me that is is those on your side (deranged leftists) who're constantly doing things (virtue-signalling) to try and feel better about yourselves because deep down you all know that your side is on the wrong side of history and no amount of brainwashing the younger generations or trying to rewrite history (for example, claiming that Hitler and his nazi thugs were '"right wing" or the ridiculous claim that the political parties "switched" thereby letting the democrats off the hook for creating the KKK) will ever change that.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
If you're pro secession and anti big government it made sense to vote for trump to a degree, but some people went full retard and thought trump was orange jesus



No Trump supporter I know thought that Trump was some kind of second coming of Jesus Christ lol. Trump is nothing like Jesus. Still, he is not actually evil either as over 99% of democrats are.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I see that left wingers here are just as ignorant as ever. Dude, we don't have to try to "feel better about ourselves" . It comes naturally to us because we aren't the ones who support the murder of unborn children in the name of so-called "women's rights". A true conservative merey wants the god**** government to stay the f*** out of our lives. The only legitimate roles of government are:


1. to protect our God-given, inalienable rights (government does not grant them in a republic, they are only supposed to protect them).


2. To make sure our country and its borders are protected,. Which means having a strong military and border patrol.


3. To punish criminals/evil-doers.

Period.

Social issues? Oh, you mean like how there is an average of 3500 unborn children murdered in this supposedly "Christian" nation every single damn day? We don't shy away from that issue at all. In fact, to a true Conservative, that is THE most pressing issue in this country, even moreso than the 2nd amendment being threatened.


Or when you say "social issues" are you referring to retarded things like men being able to compete in women's sports or BLM neo-marxist bullshit?

Funny, it appears to me that is is those on your side (deranged leftists) who're constantly doing things (virtue-signalling) to try and feel better about yourselves because deep down you all know that your side is on the wrong side of history and no amount of brainwashing the younger generations or trying to rewrite history (for example, claiming that Hitler and his nazi thugs were '"right wing" or the ridiculous claim that the political parties "switched" thereby letting the democrats off the hook for creating the KKK) will ever change that. durwank

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm saying consent is important in terms of trade - similar to other areas, and you're making up extenuating medical circumstances.

Some people have DNR orders, so giving them 'life saving medical service' could be against their wishes.

Or what If you give an emergency blood transfusion to a non consenting Jehovah's witness ?

They believe blood transfusions are sinful and avoid them at all costs.

You're really eager to position me as a sophist while constantly giving me weak arguments.

So either deal with the content of what's being discussed and by proxy improve the strength of your arguments, or admit you like to use subtle manipulations, like above quote, to not deal with my contentions.


You're wasting your time. Leftists are never genuinely sincere in any of their arguments. They love to build up strawmen and knock them down and then pretend like they've won because of it. Either that or they'll just scream that you're a racist or nazi then run away lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You're wasting your time. Leftists are never genuinely sincere in any of their arguments. They love to build up strawmen and knock them down and then pretend like they've won because of it. Either that or they'll just scream that you're a racist or nazi then run away lol. durwank

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This place was a right wing echo chamber the last few years, only makes sense that it becomes left for a while.


You must be trolling because surely you can't be that dumb. I think there may have been a handful of people who were legitimately right wing. That is an insignificant number compared to the number of leftists that have been posting here for a while. This was never a right wing echo chamber... ever.

Welcome back ethneo!

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You're right, it is a left wing echo chamber now. But you have your conservative buttbuddies to blame for that. They talked so much shit in the days leading up to the election that they're too afraid to stay on the site and take their lumps, so they fled.

They were banned.

A fact you people conveniently ignore.

Originally posted by Klaw
They were banned.

A fact you people conveniently ignore.

Two people were banned, just two.

One was banned for extreme toxicity and the other intentionally attacked a mod non-stop, "daring" the mod to ban him, so he could effectively rage-quit KMC and have an excuse. Could say the same about the first.

Originally posted by Klaw
They were banned.

A fact you people conveniently ignore. yeah, but some of your other accounts have been banned recently and you're still here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Two people were banned, just two.

One was banned for extreme toxicity and the other intentionally attacked a mod non-stop, "daring" the mod to ban him, so he could effectively rage-quit KMC and have an excuse. Could say the same about the first.

Bingo!

Originally posted by Klaw
They were banned.

A fact you people conveniently ignore. It's a shame the rest weren't in addition.

Regardless, they effectively banned themselves by shitting their diapers so hard the mods had no choice. Play stupid games, etc.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It's a shame the rest weren't in addition.

Regardless, they effectively banned themselves by shitting their diapers so hard the mods had no choice. Play stupid games, etc. They will go, they have no self control and only post flame bait, and gaslight troll. The world has shifted back to the centre what they were trying to pass off as normal appears more and more abnormal over time since the last election.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I see that left wingers here are just as ignorant as ever. Dude, we don't have to try to "feel better about ourselves" . It comes naturally to us because we aren't the ones who support the murder of unborn children in the name of so-called "women's rights". A true conservative merey wants the god**** government to stay the f*** out of our lives. The only legitimate roles of government are:


1. to protect our God-given, inalienable rights (government does not grant them in a republic, they are only supposed to protect them).


2. To make sure our country and its borders are protected,. Which means having a strong military and border patrol.


3. To punish criminals/evil-doers.

Period.

Social issues? Oh, you mean like how there is an average of 3500 unborn children murdered in this supposedly "Christian" nation every single damn day? We don't shy away from that issue at all. In fact, to a true Conservative, that is THE most pressing issue in this country, even moreso than the 2nd amendment being threatened.


Or when you say "social issues" are you referring to retarded things like men being able to compete in women's sports or BLM neo-marxist bullshit?

Funny, it appears to me that is is those on your side (deranged leftists) who're constantly doing things (virtue-signalling) to try and feel better about yourselves because deep down you all know that your side is on the wrong side of history and no amount of brainwashing the younger generations or trying to rewrite history (for example, claiming that Hitler and his nazi thugs were '"right wing" or the ridiculous claim that the political parties "switched" thereby letting the democrats off the hook for creating the KKK) will ever change that. I see you haven't changed much which is actually quite sad. I was hoping taking time away would allow you to sit with your thoughts and realize how deranged they are.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I agree best to forget Broly. Ahh, Newjak you are ever the optimist. You gotta have some hope right

Originally posted by Newjak
You gotta have some hope right Ansolutely, I am a glass half full man myself