Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Income tax is a robbery. Income taxes are punishing people for work. Income taxes should be removed. Thank you.
2019-07-10 21:06
Very cool! I believe hltv gang will destroy income taxes now!
2019-07-10 21:07
yes!
2019-07-10 21:08
#478
 | 
Europe smartSUFY1 
sarcasm level MAX.
2019-07-11 23:17
form of theft and slavery
2019-07-10 21:08
+1
2019-07-10 21:08
#233
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
yes fuck the police and roads, we dont need that shit.
2019-07-11 16:46
other taxes hello?
2019-07-11 17:09
#285
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
like what? the ones that are paying for schools and army?
2019-07-11 17:29
VAT :)
2019-07-11 17:59
#309
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
what about it?you want to lose it completely or just from some products?
2019-07-11 18:09
thats not income tax thats outgoing tax xD can be very regressive when the people with the money are setting it. Yachts, tax free, and uh 97% tax of automotive repair service (or something else rich people dont use because they just buy a new one), that pretty much sums up right wing tax policy
2019-07-11 19:43
But I want to remove income tax not VAT wtf
2019-07-11 19:54
I am just showing why vat is not the only taxation, because of the very strong probability of regressive taxing if it is general revenue for the state to meet it's obligations
2019-07-11 23:00
But vehicles have VAT on them
2019-07-12 09:25
isnt a yacht a vehicle? so not all of them in my hyperbole there
2019-07-12 17:22
This is an international site, please write your comment in English. Comments in another language will be deleted.
2019-07-10 21:10
ok
2019-07-10 21:10
many thank
2019-07-10 21:11
#65
kennyS | 
New Zealand INxNITY 
This is an international site, please write your comment in English. Comments in another language will be deleted.
2019-07-11 10:07
ok
2019-07-12 19:17
What language is that?
2019-07-13 00:32
no idea mens)))))))
2019-07-13 18:34
#6
 | 
Luxembourg fowkingell 
Roads don't build themselves
2019-07-10 21:10
You can build roads from money from other taxes. From VAT for example. If income taxes would have been removed receipts from VAT would have been 5000x higher
2019-07-10 21:12
or let the jobless build em
2019-07-10 21:11
#66
kennyS | 
New Zealand INxNITY 
Doesn't make sense You need materials to build shit
2019-07-11 10:08
Ez, let the jobless pay for the materials
2019-07-11 13:54
0/8 btw
2019-07-11 14:01
I report u for bullying :-(
2019-07-11 14:11
Are you really that stupid? Renaming taxes would not change anything :D
2019-07-11 19:07
#477
 | 
Germany nobodyCS 
goods would rise in price, so your purchasing power doesn’t change lol, even if your new VAT would cover income tax + old VAT, people would just be dealing with bigger numbers, not suddenly become rich.
2019-07-11 23:16
Unless you make millions a year you would not be in the net positive of such a thing. Its honestly sad how well the super rich have managed to use propaganda to make regular unwealthy people support moronic things that would not benefit them at all. Taxation should be progressive and tax for income over 5 or 10 million should be 95% or something.
2019-07-12 08:15
#642
Hobbit | 
Poland N1cc0 
Taxation should be progressive and tax for income over 5 or 10 million should be 95% or something. you whaat men?))
2019-07-12 14:36
#13
 | 
Yugoslavia HeavySmoker 
Acting like VAT doesnt exist
2019-07-10 21:12
#23
 | 
Germany xsyzzz123 
we already have roads so 0/8
2019-07-10 21:19
i'll see you when we start building air roads
2019-07-10 21:25
#43
 | 
Germany xsyzzz123 
without taxes progress will be so fast that we will have electric flying cars within years 100%
2019-07-10 21:26
#238
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
yes and while the roads decay polices are gone and internet access disappears, our progress will get much faster.
2019-07-11 16:49
what does taxation have to do with the internet?
2019-07-11 17:35
#295
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
i guess that depends on the country but it's usually up to the government to dig in the cables and antennas.
2019-07-11 17:37
Then be aware that the government bureaucracy only makes it harder for companies to install the cables, which they do even here
2019-07-11 18:17
#328
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
imagine if companies had to buy all that land just to get cables all over the country. half of the country would be without phonelines/internet... or the cost for internet would be insane in smaller cities.
2019-07-11 18:23
#10
 | 
Germany xsyzzz123 
username checks out biggest fan btw <333
2019-07-10 21:11
#12
 | 
Israel soprendo 
Abolish all types of taxation besides sales tax
2019-07-10 21:11
They are not robbery?
2019-07-10 21:26
#62
 | 
Israel soprendo 
No, because it's a choice.
2019-07-11 09:15
Eating is a choice?
2019-07-11 11:52
#102
 | 
Australia tavalol 
yes
2019-07-11 12:03
Then working is a choice too so income taxes are not stealing either. Case made, thanks you.
2019-07-11 12:08
#481
 | 
Netherlands Removed 
+1 one of the few smart people on this site
2019-07-12 00:23
Sure, you go man
2019-07-10 21:12
ok
2019-07-10 21:13
Ok
2019-07-10 21:14
ok
2019-07-10 21:14
Ok
2019-07-10 21:14
oK
2019-07-10 21:14
OKokOK
2019-07-10 21:16
okkkkkk
2019-07-10 21:19
oooook
2019-07-10 21:19
ok
2019-07-10 21:21
ok
2019-07-10 21:22
ok
2019-07-10 21:23
OK
2019-07-10 21:23
okk
2019-07-10 21:23
OkkkkkkkO
2019-07-10 21:23
OOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
2019-07-10 21:24
OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK
2019-07-10 21:24
OKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
2019-07-10 21:25
K
2019-07-10 21:25
KK
2019-07-10 21:25
KK... No
2019-07-10 21:26
okey
2019-07-10 21:27
Ko
2019-07-10 21:28
ok
2019-07-10 21:29
+1
2019-07-10 21:15
Kids talking about taxes xdddddd
2019-07-10 21:20
haha you don't know nothing then
2019-07-10 21:20
#109
 | 
Poland Franpol1080 
nt he is 76 years old
2019-07-11 12:14
#226
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
+1
2019-07-11 16:44
rurururkowce
2019-07-10 21:24
na dnie oceanu
2019-07-10 21:25
w rowie marjańskim
2019-07-11 11:08
I wonder how many people couldn't work without roads and all other infrastructure they use everyday to work paid with taxes. Let me look at Somalia... Oh I got it.
2019-07-10 21:27
#72
 | 
Brazil adre221 
So if the state doesn't steal from people roads wouldn't exist? 10/10 logic
2019-07-11 11:16
#228
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
So, who else is gonna pay for things like that?
2019-07-11 16:45
#232
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The people who use the roads? It's like if I created a criminal faction and monopolized the distribution of water, then claimed that if it weren't for me everyone would die of thirst.
2019-07-11 16:46
#239
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
So how are you gonna make something like that happen? Mautstation on every street?
2019-07-11 16:49
#528
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The technical aspect of how it'd happen is another discussion entirely. What I'm arguing is that ethically speaking, libertarianism is correct.
2019-07-12 09:19
Adre: "So if the state doesn't steal from people roads wouldn't exist?" Robi: "So, who else is gonna pay for things like that" Adre: "The people who use the roads?" Something here doesn't add up lol. Hope you can see it.
2019-07-12 09:12
#527
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Yeah, I'll steal 10000$ from you and give you 100$ in supermarket goods, and when you claim that it's unjustified that I stole from you, I'll just say ''who else is going to pay for your food?''
2019-07-12 09:18
So you compare supermarket goods with roads and the 10000$ is from tax. But we pay for more then just roads right??
2019-07-12 11:58
#550
 | 
Brazil adre221 
#502 Read the second half of this comment.
2019-07-12 12:03
yes good idea, how you think your country will operate with no money?
2019-07-10 21:29
lmao income from other taxes = no money?
2019-07-10 21:30
income tax makes up roughly 50% of a countries spending budget. maybe not poland though, less income tax there
2019-07-10 21:31
If income taxes would have been removed receipts from VAT would have been 5000x higher
2019-07-10 21:32
um no it wouldnt
2019-07-10 21:33
It would increase because most investors always come to countries with low income taxes. They would spend money in country without income taxes and the influence from VAT would be veeeery big
2019-07-10 21:35
Why investors would come to low income taxes countries? Today, I can invest in your country without leaving mine.
2019-07-11 01:43
You dont understand economics at all lmao What youre trying to explain here is called "trickle down" economics, first proposed by Ronald Reagans administration. Also guess what, its a load of steaming hot bullshit and DOES NOT WORK! Unless you are a megamillionaire, your idea is terrible for you. And we should not implement things that benefit only the 0,001% of people and suck for all the rest.
2019-07-12 08:18
hahah gtfo /w socialist ecpnomic
2019-07-12 23:17
Youre wrong, just admit it. Its okay comrade.
2019-07-12 23:45
not much higher in fact. For exemple in France VAT bring 3 time more money than income taxes to the state. So compensating the cut of all income taxes by VAT would increase it by 25%. The problem is about equity. Meanwhile the porest have all their income taxed by VAT (as they spend it all), meanwhile the richest don't (as only a little part of their income is spend). So it would be like saying "we will make the poorest pay 25% taxes on their income and the richest pay 0.5% taxes on their income". It has been the case in some moment of the history : middle age, were nobility was paying no taxes while the rest of the people was paying multiple taxes.
2019-07-11 01:41
#230
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
"income tax makes up roughly 50% of a countries spending budget. maybe not poland though, " lmao DESTRUCTION 100
2019-07-11 16:46
0/8
2019-07-12 10:14
in poland its around 15% but for real its 13% orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki8ka.nsf/0/74213BD9.. give me any official source that its 50% in GB
2019-07-11 18:17
poor people crying about taxes again 😂😂😂
2019-07-10 21:30
I think there should be no taxes except for 2: Federal Income Tax Federal Corporate Tax Each 3.5% , only for citizens who earn 5 mill /year and corporations that earn 20 mill /year That way the poorer pay no taxes and you make sure that 100% of the taxes are paid by the ones with the most money , but at the same time , you don't drive the rich , small business kickstarters and other job creators away , in fact with such a low margin , you will probably atract every enterprise in the fucking planet lul.
2019-07-10 21:39
7/10 idea imo 30000x better than income taxes for almost everyone
2019-07-10 21:40
#78
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I have a 10/10 idea no taxes
2019-07-11 11:21
#448
TenZ | 
North America JC_123 
+1
2019-07-11 19:54
+1
2019-07-11 01:35
Another idiot whos been watching too much YouTube
2019-07-11 01:37
#64
 | 
Denmark Gryde 
+1
2019-07-11 09:48
#74
 | 
Brazil adre221 
elaborate
2019-07-11 11:17
Just google income tax is robbery on YouTube and you'll find videos with people saying its bad and using big words, and idiots like this guy is convinced because they are so dumb. Using big words and talking what-ifs aren't arguments, but it's the only thing those people use.
2019-07-11 15:02
#156
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I don't think this guy is dumb. I can prove that income tax, and every type of tax for that matter is theft, without using any ''big words''. I can prove that utilizing ethics only. If you have any interest in the subject I'd suggest you studying the Austrian School of Economics.
2019-07-11 15:09
Bro of course you can argue it's theft if you decide all the premises for the discussion. I just have never heard anyone propose an alternative that's better
2019-07-11 15:12
#159
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's theft because tax and theft have the same definition. Even if there were no ''better alternative'', it'd still be theft. It's very simple. And there is a better alternative, you simply have to follow ethics, which would result in an anarchocapitalist society.
2019-07-11 15:27
#199
 | 
Finland C0DEXX 
Worst argument I heard all day
2019-07-11 16:34
#221
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Then refute it.
2019-07-11 16:41
#278
f0rest | 
Mexico bfish8 
Well, theft is just taking money away from someone for yourself. 1 person wins, 1 person loses. Taxes are being paid to provide funding for things like infrastructure, construction, schools, police force, government, the big salaries for the people you voted for. With no tax how is the government going to provide anything to anyone? What politicians will work for free their entire lives? The country would be ran by the wealthiest and there would be chaos everywhere.
2019-07-11 17:21
#502
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Theft is stealing someone's else private property without their consent, it has nothing to do with the number of people involved. If you stole from 1 person to give to 1000 it is theft. If you steal from 1000 to give it to 1 it'd still be theft. You didn't refute that taxation is theft, you only said that without taxes the government wouldn't exist, which is obvious, since they are funded on theft. If a criminal organization here in Brazil didn't steal they wouldn't exist either. The government doesn't ''provide'' anything, they monopolize crucial services of the market so that they are the only ones who can provide them, then steal from the population to fund these services, purely for propaganda purposes, since they rely on propaganda to exist. ''The country would be ran by the wealthiest and there would be chaos everywhere.'' An incorrect statement based on nothing.
2019-07-12 08:15
#507
f0rest | 
Mexico bfish8 
You're a fucking idiot, that is all.
2019-07-12 08:24
#511
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Why did you even bother replying? By making this petty insult you are just admiting that you don't have any arguments and is completely defeated, you didn't have to humiliate yourself like this.
2019-07-12 08:27
#519
f0rest | 
Mexico bfish8 
I made my points and you responded with nonsense. Therefore I called you a fucking idiot.
2019-07-12 08:55
#520
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I responded with completely logical arguments, since you realized it's irrefutable, you resort to childish insults. Now that you have given up on trying to argue against it, you are a waste of time. I'm not going to keep replying to a kid that can only insult. You could have saved yourself the embarrassment, but you chose to humiliate yourself even further.
2019-07-12 08:57
#246
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
"Even if there were no ''better alternative'' then come up with some smart alternative bro.
2019-07-11 16:53
#250
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Paleolibertarianism
2019-07-11 16:54
Ahahahaha "Anarcho-capitalist society" As a true anarchist (ancaps are not anarchist in any shape or form) I can tell you that such a society would not be able to run. If it was indeed, running, it would require the reinstation of feudalism. Ancaps are the dumbest people in the world.
2019-07-12 08:20
#510
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Feudalism is a form of state dumbass. Anarchocommunism is the one that is impossible since it's not based on ethics, it's based on retarded marxist theory, since it's not based on ethics the predominant elite who enforces anarchocommunism would be functioning like a state.
2019-07-12 08:26
You just proved that you have read zero theory, as is always the case with ancaps. Neo-Feudalism is what would happen if anarchocapitalism was the way society is run, why? You need a power to enforce the right to private ownership so instead of that being done through state you would need private armies, which would lead to a neo-feudalist type of mercenary army situation. You'd have your "lords" who own everything and their soldiers that violently defend it. Youre honestly so fucking dumb that you dont even realize that anarchism opposes "all unjustified hierarchies" including the state AND the economic hierarchies - meaning that ancapism is totally incompatible with the anarchist philosophy. Bakunin would fucking turn in his grave if he saw an abomination like yourself. Wake up you little dumb sheep! Also anarchocommunism would not have a "predominant elite" lmao This is not fucking marxism, you've so obviously never read a word of Karl Marx, nor any other of the relevant people, so youre totally lost as to what ancoms even want.
2019-07-12 08:34
#515
 | 
Brazil adre221 
#512 Only political hierarchies are unjustified, since they are necessarily unethical. Economical hiearchies that are consequence of voluntary trade doesn't violate ethics.
2019-07-12 08:40
Hahahaha this is your average 15 year old idiot trying to argue with anyone. People, just point and fucking laugh alright! Economical hierarchies are justified = congratz you are not an anarchist! Maybe this fun little video can shed some light to you: youtube.com/watch?v=OOTlxsn8tWc
2019-07-12 08:45
#518
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I'm an anarchist by definition. If you change that definition to include your idiotic marxist theories, then you'd be making a strawman fallacy to my argument. I can be considered an anarchist in the sense that I support a stateless society, if you change that meaning to include being against all forms of hiearchy, then ofc I won't be an anarchist by that definition. Maybe those fun 84 books can shed some light to you: goodreads.com/list/show/1653.The_Austria..
2019-07-12 08:54
Anarchism is not and has never been opposition to state. Its opposition to unjustified hierarchies, of which state is but one example of. If you claim to be an anarchist, which you obviously arent, then you should be against wage slavery and private property. In the words of Proudhon: "private property is theft". Kid just got schooled in some theory. Peace im out!
2019-07-12 09:04
#524
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Anarchocapitalism doesn't base itself on that idiot Proudhon, it bases itself on Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe etc. Anarchocapitalism is defined as the defense of a stateless society, I never defined myself as an anarchist with your communist terms. Any institution that violates the private property of innocents are always unjustified by definition. Meaning that the communist elite in anarchocommunism that violates private property would be an unjustified hierarchy. Anarchocapitalism is a recent theory based on Austrian economics, it doesn't follow classical anarchist theory, don't be an idiot.
2019-07-12 09:09
Rothbard himself said that ancapism is not anarchism. You dont even read your own losers, how sad yet normal of ancap morons hahaha.. Also what "communist elite"?!? There is no communist elite in ancom society, which is a stateless, propertyless society. Youre totally fucking clueless lmao Read some theory before embarrassing yourself again kid haha
2019-07-12 09:26
#548
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's not anarchism because anarchism is associated with communist theory, that's why it's called anarchocapitalism, to CLEARLY distinguish that from anarchocommunism. We use anarchocapitalism simply as a term to show that we defend a stateless society, we never claimed to be anarchists in the communist sense. You should inform yourself about the meaning of semantics, or you'll be making strawman fallacies, attacking arguments we never made like you're doing right now. In anarchocommunism there'd be a unjustified hiearchical relationship between violators of private property and innocent people.
2019-07-12 11:57
If there is no private property, there wont be any violation of private property either. Check mate dummy. Also distinction between personal and private property should be noted here, your belongings are protected, as they should be, but a mean of production is not yours but it belongs to the community as a whole to ensure that everyones needs are met. Ancaps are luckily not existant in the real world. The only proponents of such nonsense are dumb teenagers online in the internet such as yourself. Oh and the term anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. Thats like saying you are anarchomonarchist or something equally as dumb. Gg u lose, now read some theory u pleb
2019-07-12 12:17
#600
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Go study semantics before embarrassing yourself. Rothbard and other libertarians apply to anarchocapitalism the concept of a stateless society. That's the definition we use. that's not an oxymoron because we aren't trying to apply the original concept of anarchy to the word, we are using it to mean another thing entirely. Also, if you didn't learn already, ethics are transcental, it is a normative law, even if it's not followed or enforced, it still exists, dumbass. So yes, even if you are living in a communist hellhole, private property still exists.
2019-07-12 13:20
#243
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
+1 The internet also has his shadow side.
2019-07-11 16:51
#61
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
income tax needs a reform.
2019-07-11 01:44
Taxes at 2019 Omegalul
2019-07-11 09:44
taxes <3
2019-07-11 10:13
#85
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Either you are a government employee or you are cattle
2019-07-11 11:30
#249
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
Is the only reason why your country isn't completely broke right now xd
2019-07-11 16:54
They should only be removed if you make kids
2019-07-11 10:56
Try it and watch your country go bankrupt
2019-07-11 11:05
#75
 | 
Brazil adre221 
*state go bankrupt
2019-07-11 11:18
That one, yeah
2019-07-11 11:21
#80
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It'd be like killing a parasite. There is no reason for the state to exist
2019-07-11 11:22
#253
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
*Edgy rebellious teen thinking intensifies* Pls get off the internet.
2019-07-11 16:55
#255
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Can't refute what I just said kid?
2019-07-11 16:58
#256
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
No need for that. You sound like a desilusinal kid thinking that the only reason his life is sad is because the state steals his money even tho you are probably at school or just jobless. edit: i also have the hope that you are just baiting on a high level.
2019-07-11 17:01
#257
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Not really, I just know the truth behind what the state is. I'm very successful actually. But I wouldn't expect a idiot statist to make anything more than a worthless ad hominem. Try again when you have something resembling an argument.
2019-07-11 17:01
#260
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
"Not really, I just know the truth behind what the state is." You sound so edgy and desilusinal. 0/8
2019-07-11 17:02
#272
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Try and refute it kid, by repeating ''edgy'' and ''delusional'' over and over again you are the one that's acting like an angsty teen.
2019-07-11 17:13
How would capitalism work without the state? The answer: it wouldnt. The state is absolutely and crucially important for a capitalist society to protect the right of private ownership. It enacts, upholds and protects that the laws are followed and the laws have been made to benefit the ruling class. In your stupid as shit society, the private corporations would have to have their own private armies to defend the wealth and that would be indistinguishable from feudalism.
2019-07-12 08:23
#512
 | 
Brazil adre221 
How can an institution that can only exist by violating private property be the defensors of private property? Are you stupid? Private property comes from ethics, not from the state's socialistic legislation. Private property would be enforced by the correct use of ethics. Feudalism is a form of state with taxes and violation of private property, it's not the result of libertarian ethics. You are stupid.
2019-07-12 08:29
"How can an institution that can only exist by violating private property be the defensors of private property?" There has never been private property without a state like actor to defend it, its impossible and it sure as fuck does not result from "ethics" you absolute dumb fucking moron. Private property comes from the fact that there is a state to force people to respect someones private property. I give you an easy example that even your little ancap brain can understand: In your ancap society, with no state, lets say you "own" two shoe factories. Your engaging in this private enterprise and the only defense that your little operation has is the "ethics", so you expect people to willingly abide your claim to own these two factories where presumably some ten, twenty, thirty people are employed. Okay so one day the workers think to themselves, "adre221 is a bony little shitcunt who claims to own this place where he does zero labour, it is infact us the workers who do all the work including the manufacture, selling, shipping, maintenance of the property etc. Why should he get all the profits then? How about we kick his bony scrawny ass to the curb and run this show on ourselves and share the profits based on labour used" What would you do? Absolutely fucking nothing without a state or a private army. So you need either of those two. So in other words, shut the fuck up.
2019-07-12 08:40
#517
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Are you having a tantrum little kid? You need to be more humble if you want to be educated. Private property is the exclusive rights to a scarce resource. The law of private property is a normative law, meaning that it CAN be violated, but you'll always be unjustified in doing so. OBVIOUSLY in order to enforce such law you need the power to do so, but even if that law is violated, it still exists. Also, private property can be enforced by anyone that can do so, it can be done by one individual or a private agency. Anyone that follows ethics can enforce private property. In your communist fantasy, if someone robbed me from my factory, even though that factory would not be in my possession, it'd still be my private property, and I'd still have rights to it. In order to enforce that right, I'd have to have the power to do so, HOWEVER, in order to HAVE that right, I don't. If I own a cellphone for example, even if someone stole it from me, I'd still have the rights to it. What you are saying is as stupid as saying that a robber has the legitimate right to something they stole.
2019-07-12 08:49
It is not possible for me to be educated by you in any topic, kid. Your private ownership of a factory is not legitimate, its a coercive hierarchy. The workers who work in the factory should own it together. There is also a distinction between private and personal property, private property should be abolished and personal property, like ur cellphone, is yours to keep.
2019-07-12 09:01
#523
 | 
Brazil adre221 
''Your private ownership of a factory is not legitimate'' If I adquired that factory by legitimate means how am I not it's legimate owner? Prove it.
2019-07-12 09:04
I dont understand what you mean "prove it"? According to current laws regarding private property you probably would own it "legitimately" but morally you have no right to own a thing like factory at all. Its coercing everyone elses right to that same factory, it should be communally owned by the workers themselves. It is them who perform the labour so they should own it. See, totally rekt once again
2019-07-12 09:24
#532
 | 
Brazil adre221 
State legislation is completely irrelevant, the only valid law is the law of private property, which is derived from argumentation ethics. Your subjective moral is irrelevant. You don't have a right to something you haven't adcquired through legitimate means. If you work in that factory, you are voluntarily trading your labour for salary, you don't have any right to that factory, and it's impossible to claim so without entering in performative contradition. ''it should be communally owned by the workers themselves. It is them who perform the labour so they should own it.'' And you derive this norm from what? From your subjective opinion once again? What a joke.
2019-07-12 09:31
"derived from argumentation ethics" So care to elaborate, from where im standing there is no such right and your only argument relies on the fact that people should respect private property. Also you seem to accept the fact that private property needs private protection from military of some sort, ergo you support neo-feudalism and slavery. Capitalism is not voluntary either, labour is not voluntary. It is not voluntary when the worker is threatened by starvation, homelessness etc if they dont abide. So you also support dictatorship, as long as the dictator is an oligarch. Hmmm you are quite dumb arent you lmao
2019-07-12 10:09
#608
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The act of arguing itself implies in the existence of private property, since in order to argue it's a necessary condition for both parties to have the right to private property to their own bodies. That is argumentation ethics, and the right to private property is derived from that. So just by arguing, you are agreeing with me, and at the same time entering a contradition, since what you are actually saying goes against the conditions necessary to say it. Neo-feudalism and slavery, are you stupid? It's possible to protect private property by ethical means. Feudalism is a form of state, therefore it's unethical, and slavery is involuntary, also unethical. Capitalism by definition is voluntary trades, and when the worker chooses to sell his own labour, it's a voluntary transaction between both parties. Only people can act, ''starvation'' cannot act and therefore it cannot threaten you into a involuntary trade. All human action is made with the objective to go from a state of less comfort to a state of greater comfort, so no, a worker is not being coerced, he is acting voluntarily to achieve a desirable end. Dictatorship is a form of state and it's unethical. Stop saying stupid things, it's ridiculous.
2019-07-12 13:50
The act of arguing itself implies in the existence of private property, since in order to argue it's a necessary condition for both parties to have the right to private property to their own bodies. That is argumentation ethics, and the right to private property is derived from that. Ahahaha seriously thats your "argumentation ethics". L fucking mao. One doesnt have "a property right" to its own body as if "you own yourself". In any legal or in fact moral sense that is just fucked up and totally not the case. Also it would not fit within the concepts of actual property law concerning, well... actual property. You can probably understand why. "Capitalism by definition is voluntary trades, and when the worker chooses to sell his own labour, it's a voluntary transaction between both parties. Only people can act, ''starvation'' cannot act and therefore it cannot threaten you into a involuntary trade. All human action is made with the objective to go from a state of less comfort to a state of greater comfort, so no, a worker is not being coerced, he is acting voluntarily to achieve a desirable end." Lmao nerd, just rise your head from your screen and look at the world, literally almost anyone. We have to work for a wage in almost every single case. If youre honestly so fucking robotic ayn rand sucking nerd loser that you honestly claim starvation, need for shelter, just to survive are not massive reasons why people have a job in the first place you are totally fucking clueless and priviledged not to have had that reality slap you in the face just yet. The saddest part is, youre idolizing the very system which most likely is not rigged in your favor. Its really fucking pathetic. Seriously, watch this and tell me why he is wrong: youtube.com/watch?v=mHWAi_xCA_s
2019-07-12 18:12
#682
 | 
Brazil adre221 
''One doesnt have "a property right" to its own body as if "you own yourself". In any legal or in fact moral sense that is just fucked up and totally not the case.'' If you don't own your own body then how are you making this comment, idiot? The latter part of this statement also made no sense. ''Lmao nerd, just rise your head from your screen and look at the world, literally almost anyone. We have to work for a wage in almost every single case. If youre honestly so fucking robotic ayn rand sucking nerd loser that you honestly claim starvation, need for shelter, just to survive are not massive reasons why people have a job in the first place you are totally fucking clueless and priviledged not to have had that reality slap you in the face just yet.'' As I expected, with that tiny brain of yours you completely misunderstood the points I made. The point I made is, since a threat is an action, it can only be made by humans. Something that can't act can't threaten you. You can't suffer a threat from a rock (an act is made when a human, utilizing their reason, allocate their means to achieve an end, with the goal of achieving a state of greater comfort). Poverty is the natural condition of men and you aren't entitled to work, pay or resources, as you can't derive these norms from anything, in fact, those norms are contraditory in essence since they cause conflict. The only right you have is the right to private property. When a worker engages in voluntary trade in order to satisfy his needs, he is not being coerced by anyone, he is simply acting. Also, I'd suggest you to stop writing like a child, it's annoying to read. You are a low iq marxist, I get it, you don't need to remind me that in every phrase. I'm not going to watch some video of a retarded marxist making strawman fallacies, try to make arguments yourself instead of linking stupid videos.
2019-07-13 03:59
edgy teens actually support communism
2019-07-11 19:00
#406
 | 
Germany RobiDable 
Edgy teens also like conspiracy theorys and think they are the only one discovering the truth, like #257
2019-07-11 19:15
tru tru
2019-07-11 19:17
#500
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Still couldn't refute what I said. The only thing you do is calling others ''edgy'' all the time. You are the teen here.
2019-07-12 08:08
Communism would be perfect. I want some fully automated gay space luxury communism please!
2019-07-12 08:24
Income taxes are fine. How effectively they are used and for which things + what you get back for them is the question. I live in the UK and income taxes are really good. 11.750 pounds a year is completely untaxed, and everything above that is 20%. If yu're making 160k+ a year that can go up to 45% though, which is still normal for european standards. I'm glad I'm not in belgium anymore where I'd be paying 45%+ no matter what.
2019-07-11 11:10
#73
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's not fine theft is theft even if it's 1 cent
2019-07-11 11:17
grow up m8
2019-07-11 11:18
#77
 | 
Brazil adre221 
great argument against the truth I just spoke
2019-07-11 11:20
You had no argument in yours either. You obviously do not understand how governments work.
2019-07-11 11:25
you obviously never questionned ethics of governments. what do you call it when somebody threatens you if you don't give them a huge percentage of your income every month?
2019-07-11 11:26
#84
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I do know how governments work steal -> brainwash useful idiots to justify stealing through intensive propaganda
2019-07-11 11:27
+1 like the minions of our country
2019-07-12 08:14
+1
2019-07-11 18:21
Taking money in that way is vastly less immoral than letting the infrastructure and stuff like free college and free healthcare go to shit or make it impossible. THATS the truth.
2019-07-11 16:36
#210
 | 
Brazil adre221 
If it's immoral or not I don't care, the problem is that it's unethical, so it's impossible to defend this position without contradicting yourself. There is no such thing as free college or healthcare, there is college or healthcare paid with stolen money.
2019-07-11 16:38
Oh fucking hell its obvious that I mean universal college/healthcare, not free. Nothing is free except for sand maybe. Its certainly ethical for the exact same reason that I gave.
2019-07-11 16:41
#499
 | 
Brazil adre221 
??????? How can a violation of private property of innocents ever be ethical? Lefist brain strikes again?
2019-07-12 08:07
If the effects of the opposite are vastly more important and moral, then its ethical. Lets say completely hypothetically. One person has kidnapped a child for ransom and says 1000$ and I will let that person go. Now in order to make the example clear, all negative effects of paying that ransom are not the case in this situation, meaning that in this scenario: 1. The chance that the person will torture the child to death if the money doesnt get paid is 100% 2. The chance that the person will let the child go if paid is 100% 3. The universe only contains that scenario and if the sum of money gets paid it doesnt incentivize other people to kidnap people for money (which obv in reality is a real concern) and so on... In that scenario I think its absurd to argue that one could not steal 1000$ from Bezos or 1$ each from the 1000 richest people on earth each (which they obviously wouldnt even notice, just for comparison, what is 1$ to us, are like 90000$ to Bezos) in order to save the child from a gruesome death, because it would "be unethical to touch private peoples money mimimimi". If you try to pretend that it would be less ethical to take that money which literally has ZERO actual real-world-negative effect but 100% positive effect, you are a dogmatic psychopath who holds on to high-horse-idealism for the sake of it, not because of rational deliberation.
2019-07-12 11:55
#565
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Ethics is the law of private property, which is derived from argumentation ethics. If it violates the private property of innocents, it's unethical. So, even if in your subjective sense of morality stealing is justified, ethically it'll always be unjustified, and arguing otherwise enters a performative contradition, since the act of arguing already assumes you have self-ownership of your own body.
2019-07-12 12:21
Okay, assuming that what you said just now is correct, it means that this branch of ethics is useless, unrealistic, idealistic and immoral. I dont know if you think that if you can get the other side to say that they think that something unethical should be done you "GOTTEM" but I can assure you that thats not the case. Case closed?
2019-07-12 12:23
#571
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's not useless since it's used to avoid conflict, it's not unrealistic since it can only dictate norms in reality, idealistic, maybe, depends on what you mean by it, and moral is relative, it's not absolute like ethics. A killer may think killing is moral, etc. etc. So your moral is irrelevant in this case. The point is proving that what you're arguing for is completely illogical and irrational and just arguing itself already makes you agree with me, effectively making your actions contraditory.
2019-07-12 12:28
Its to avoid conflict yet brings all sorts of other shit with it. It is idealistic and as such not pragmatic, thats what I meant with unrealistic. And generally I am not sure if morals are subjective or objective but the difference between you and me is that I can actually RATIONALIZE my morality whereas you can only say "but muh etiks say no". A killer realistically wont be able to rationalize that those killings (depending on the type of killings ofc but I assume we are both talking about murder) are moral. So I find it laughable when you call my morality irrational when I am literally at least attempting to RATIONALIZE it instead of just pointing to "muh etiks" like you are doing. Its precisely the other way around.
2019-07-12 13:05
#594
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's impossible to rationalize your morality if that morality is unethical, since the act of using reason ALREADY implies utilizing ethics (in order to argue you have to assume both parties have the rightful ownership of their own bodies). So you enter a contradition when you make such absurd claims. What you did is not justify, it was exposing your opinion on why you think something is right or wrong, you failed to justify it, because it's only your subjetive opinion. A murderer could do the same thing.
2019-07-12 13:10
Assuming that what you said is correct, even if I use one bit of ethics doesnt mean I agree with every last idiotic thing that people have come up with. The justification is that its reasonable to say that the survival and avoidance of a torturous death of a child is vastly preferable to the stealing of a sum of money off a person who literally will not notice it + the implications of that act being justified. The justification for that is that the implications of that child being killed like that have many negative consequences, a burden on the conscience of everyone involved (except maybe for psychopaths like you) which might cripple their ability to properly work for a certain period of time, the unfair fate of the child for no reason, the implication of how little value a human has in that society and how barbaric it is because of that and so on... Its the usual stuff, Life is generally preferable to death, non-pain/happyness is generally preferable to pain and so on. Like I said, these are all things for a realist. If you want to keep being an idealist, go right ahead but DONT pretend you have the moral high ground.
2019-07-12 13:17
#605
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Not only do I have the moral highground but my position is the only one that can be rationalized and logically defended in an argumentation, if ethics were to be followed the kidnapper would have to be killed immediatly because of the threat he represents to the child. The only legitimate solutions are the ones who end the threat without hurting anyone else, saving a child is not unethical, but robbery WILL always be unethical. You try to argue that your unethical sense of morality is correct, that in itself is impossible, but you think the ends justify the means, following this twisted logic, murdering innocents, robbing innocents, and all forms of crimes CAN be justified, and yet you call me a psychopat and other idiotc things.
2019-07-12 13:41
Well obviously its not always possible to just kill the kidnapper. Thats why you are forced to actually think about this situation. Also, yes, robbery itself is ofc unethical and immoral but the act of letting the child die is MORE immoral and unethical and as such needs to be prevented. Plus its not robbery it would be more like theft. And even that is absurd because that makes it sound like Bezos would actually lose something when to him its like coughing one time too much vs. saving a childs life from torturous death. You are doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to not have to admit that obviously this type of theft would be justified EASILY. If you had to decide between this dichotomy: Let the child be tortured to death. Take 1 cent from a person to save that childs life. (Why 1 cent? Think about it) WHAT WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE? DONT WEASEL AROUND, ANSWER.
2019-07-12 13:58
#616
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Stealing from someone and saving a child are two separate actions, you are tring to mix them as if they were one in the same, they are not. So stealing from someone, whatever quantity might it be, for whatever end will always be unjustified. Saving a child's life however, is justified. Stealing from someone IS a separate action from saving a life, so the act of stealing from a innocent WILL always be unjustified no matter the reason, the means doesn't justify the ends. I'll repeat myself just to make this very clear. There is two separate actions in this hypothetical quesiton, one is justified, the other is not.
2019-07-12 13:58
Of course, but for some reason you ignore that the two are in the same one scenario AND are directly linked/direcly influence the outcome of the situation. So they are not completely independent. So, again, you are still busy weaseling coz you know you are trapped. You are faced with this dichotomy, how. do. you. act.?
2019-07-12 14:10
#624
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The isolated act of stealing from an innocent will always be unjustified, so if you make a chain of actions and in one of then you commit a crime, commiting that crime will be wrong, everything else won't.
2019-07-12 14:14
But it isnt isolated. Thats idiotic. Its like saying if I shoot a guy in the head, the isolated act of firing a gun isnt unjustified and the chain of events just so happens to be that there is a head in the way, so I am not at fault. Even if this isnt an ideal example, the point is still, you are bouncing around the question because you are dishonest. HOW DO YOU ACT IN THIS DICHOTOMY FFS?
2019-07-12 14:19
#635
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Shooting a gun is a single action and the murder that follows is the consequence of that action. There is only one action made, and that action was criminal. Your hypothetical questional has multiple actions, of which one is unjustified. The action of stealing would be unjustified, paying for the ransom wouldn't. I responded very clearly, you are the one being either ignorant or dishonest yourself, failling to understand simple logic, and trying to find extreme examples to try and justify ethical violations in order to justify your moral views. I said this multiple times, violating ethics is always unjustified, and so is your morals.
2019-07-12 14:27
Well, in a not so unrealistic scenario where the wealth inequality would be so strong that there are only very few or even one ultra-rich person and the others can not pay 1000$ (which technically is already true f.e. a big percentage of the US population would be hard-crippled by an unexpected 400$ bill), there is no person that can "just pay the ransom". Thats why its a dichotomy, you have to rationalize why it would be more moral to let the child die than to take the money (1 cent) from an uninvolved ultra-rich person.
2019-07-12 14:31
#641
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Let's say you steal the money and pay the ransom. Stealing the money will be unjustified, using that money to pay the ransom won't be, they are two separate actions, the first one is unjustified and the second one isn't. Just like taxation is unjustified, only that is the crime, the government using that money for whatever reason is not unjustified, unless what they're using the money for also violates property in a way (which in most cases does).
2019-07-12 14:35
You are making these equivocations left and right as if there are no differences in quality or intensity of an immoral action. And thats whats hindering you from finally fucking answering what YOU would do in that scenario, because you pretend that stealing a cent is as immoral as letting a child be tortured to death because they are both in the category of "unjustified action". What would YOU do in the dichotomy? I will ask until I get an answer, either you steal the cent or you let the child die, its up to you.
2019-07-12 14:52
#648
 | 
Brazil adre221 
As I said before, moral is relative and is not relevant in an ethical argumentation. Your ''dicothomy'' is impossible, for two reasons, first because you are giving stealing as a necessary condition to save the child's life, which is impossible, since both are two separate actions. Second, you claim knowledge of the kidnapper's intention which, unless you are the kidnapper yourself, is impossible. You also claim to have knowledge of the what would happen if the ransom were paid, which is also impossible. This ''dicothomy'' is irrational and impossible, and is a desperate attempt to prove the validity of your morality. Ethics can only be applied to reality, you can't apply ethics to impossible conditions. That'd be like trying to apply ethics in a hypotethical scenario where the universe didn't exist.
2019-07-12 15:05
Its definitely hypothetical, I never said otherwise. But the difference is that I could justify my actions in scenarios like that (or probably every scenario that one could come up with to test my morals) whereas you have literally nothing left to say than "muh etiks" to which you desperately cling without ever rationalizing why they are more rational than what I would do. Whats so psychopathic is that you still havent answered my question because you KNOW THAT YOU ARE TRAPPED. You are doing absolutely everything to avoid answering and I wont let it happen.
2019-07-12 15:09
#658
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Ethics can only be applied to possible scenarios, it can't be applied to impossible scenarios. And your idiotic leftist morals can't ever be rationalized, because the act of using reason already implies in following an ethic, so you'd always enter a contradition. Your hypothetical example is completely stupid because you can't apply ethics OR morals to impossible conditions, ethics and morals can only be applied to situations within the realm of reality.
2019-07-12 15:28
"because the act of using reason already implies in following an ethic" Not only have I never doubted that, I specifically said that just because I might apply some ethics at some points, doesnt mean I have to agree with everything that YOU think is supposedly ethical. #2: The situation is 100% unrealistic but isnt literally impossible. Its not like I am saying that the guy has a gun and doesnt have a gun at the same time (aka something that would literally defy the law of non-contradiction), so why could one not deliberate about the morals of that situation? I think you are using a cop-out because you are desperate to not have to answer a question directly without an appeal to ethos.
2019-07-12 15:39
#660
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Ethic is objective, there is no such thing as what I think is ethic. It's the same for everyone. The situation is indeed literally impossible, because you are giving one action as a necessary condition to perform a separate action, which is physically not possible. Not only that, but you defy economical axioms by claiming to have impossible knowledge. So in your example you are omniscient (which is impossible) in an impossible world where one action is a necessary condition for another separate action (which is not physically possible). And to answer your question, regardless of what me or any other person does in any type of scenario, ethic is absolute and will always be correct.
2019-07-12 15:48
Ethical absolutes are for the simple-minded that are unable to think in any non-dogmatic or -god forbid- flexible way. Prove me wrong. Or as one guy put it "But what happens when you’re put into a situation where two such absolute rules are in conflict? The classical example is when a psychotic killer breaks into your house, and demands to know where a friend of yours is located, because he wants to kill her. Do you tell him, thus causing your friend’s death? Or do you refuse, or mislead him, which is dishonest? Most folks would choose the latter, but when not lying or concealing the truth is considered as absolute a rule as not killing or causing another to be killed, you’re still in conflict. This is why so few people embrace the idea of moral/ethical absolutes. While we certainly don’t consider all rules to be totally relative, most people recognize that ethical decision-making requires careful discernment of all factors, with the goal of the best (or least objectionable) outcome possible."
2019-07-14 03:10
unexpected from hltv dating expert but +1
2019-07-11 11:32
HLTVEconomicExpert economic modeling is a big part of my job.
2019-07-11 11:35
Didn't you also give good advice in a guitar thread?
2019-07-11 11:37
Well I have been playing guitar for over 10 years now so yes. HLTVExpertInEvrything
2019-07-11 11:41
HLTVGuitarEconomics&DatingExpert :p Or are you an expert when it comes to everything?
2019-07-11 11:43
If I'd say so myself without being a bragging asshole, there would be a few things: -Dating, worked as a dating coach for a few years, was involved in the "dating scene" since I was 17, worked for some of the biggest companies in the world during uni, doing various bits and pieces -Economy and especially future-based forecasting as that's my job. I worked as a strategy consultant for a while, guiding companies through their strategy for the future, now working as a Thought Leadership specialist, creating the point of view for my own company about the future -Wouldn't say I'm an expert at playing guitars, but I definitely am an expert on guitars themselves as objects/investments -Anything to do with assessments and testing including IQ theory, as I wrote research for my university around that and was initially hired for my company (the one im still in and was a strategy consultant for) to review their assessment strategy for the future and bring in a more science-based approach Those are the big ones. Maybe some smaller bits and pieces and knowledge nuggets, but on those I'm confident I know much of what there is to know.
2019-07-11 11:48
Honestly, being proud of what you achieved isn't the same as bragging. I don't have a lot of time, and you might not either so I'd totally understand if you wouldn't do so, but would you mind giving me a short explanation of it means to be a thought leadership specialist? I hope you a have a nice day~!
2019-07-11 11:58
Sure man. I suppose it depends from company to company and their focus. For my team specifically, which is a subteam of the Thought Leadership team we have, we look at the macro-economical impact of several technologies and trends in the "far future" (anything more than 5-10 years ahead). Based on these forecasts, we help create and formulate our company's point of view on several things: -What this may look like -What businesses should consider (e.g. where to invest early on, which partnerships will be needed, which capabilities to develop and stay ahead of the curve) -What this means for consumers/every day life -A whole bunch more things depending on the nature of the trend and technology (could be ethical implications or how regulation will catch up) This is done through creating reports that either get published internally to help facilitate conversations with our clients by our own employees, or they get published externally. For example, one of our reports is going to be the flagship report for our company on the World Economic Forum in Davos. We also write external publications in the form of articles, typically for sources such as the Harvard Business Review. I personally wrote one that got published last month. Unfortunately doesn't have my name on it since they always want to pretend some high ranking and known person in the company wrote a point of view (it's standard practise). Apart from that we do design thinking workshops as well as presentations to help clients or client teams think about what the future will look like for their industry or company in specific by guiding them through how to think about future trends and injecting their company into that. This is my favorite part cause I get to travel to different countries to deliver the workshops and get to meet a lot of people. I was in Milan last month and will be in Athens in September, we've also secured a bunch of workshops for next year in the US and Canada.
2019-07-11 12:05
Thank you for taking the time to explain it c: It sounds like an amazing job to have~!
2019-07-11 13:37
BASED HLTV EXPERT
2019-07-11 11:43
xoxo join the fanclub
2019-07-11 11:48
#100
 | 
Brazil adre221 
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''economist'''''''''''''''''''''''' filthy keynesian
2019-07-11 11:58
so are all taxes! thank you
2019-07-11 11:25
no, properties tax is good one
2019-07-11 18:22
#498
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You can't consider yourself ''right-wing'' while defending any type of taxes or government intervention.
2019-07-12 08:06
state must have some taxes to work. Adam Smith said tax should have 4 things: it shoould be eazy to gather. convenient (ppl must know when and how much they must pay), sure (everybody should pay), eqal (ppl police, army take more care of bigger houses). There are 3 good taxes for me properties tax, VAT, head tax. anyway we agree that there shouldnt be income tax
2019-07-12 10:04
the only acceptable ish taxes are LVT and carbon tax property tax can go fuck itself
2019-07-12 11:39
#580
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The state shouldn't exist and Adam Smith is an idiot. It's completely inconsistent to know the truth that taxation is theft but still defend certain taxes to exist, it makes no sense. Even socialists are more consistent in this aspect, since they don't consider taxation to be theft.
2019-07-12 12:45
im a realist, if you want to live in a country that everybody steals everything and kills everybody then you are idiot and i bet you dont know who Adam Smith even was.
2019-07-12 13:24
#604
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Change your nickname to leftwing polak then, because that's exactly the type of arguments you are making, the difference between you and a socialist is simply the quantity, qualitatively you are the same. If you really believe that the state is good or necessary you are a leftist. Right-wing theory is not based on idiots like Adam Smith, it's based on the scholasticism and the people who came after it that funded the Austrian School of Economics, such as Mises, Rothbard, etc.
2019-07-12 13:31
>doesnt want as many taxes as it is right now but knows there must be any because has brain >more taxes, steal rich ppl coz they are rich and make everybody eqal / being leftist chose one
2019-07-12 13:47
#612
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Leftist defend taxes because they think taxes are good, so they are dumb but they are consistent inside their own logic. You know taxes are bad, but still defend them, so you are inconsistent in your own logic.
2019-07-12 13:53
i dont defend them but there is no other way for police, army, courts to work so these are the best taxes that are not as bad as most of the taxes.
2019-07-12 13:56
#617
 | 
Brazil adre221 
There is no other way for police, army and courts to work because the state monopolizes these services, they prohibit anyone else from providing them. It's like defending taxes for healthcare because it's the only way for healthcare to work, it's equally fallacious. These services are market demands, and if you were truly right-wing, you'd know that in a free market society these demands would be supplied, the state however, with their unjustified legislation, taxes and regulations, limit the offer of these services so that they are the only ones that can provide them. You can't defend the existence of taxes without making a leftist argument.
2019-07-12 14:03
imagine having 3 main courts in 1 country that give different verdict in 1 case. How would country work then? and these are not leftist but common sense arguments
2019-07-12 14:14
#629
 | 
Brazil adre221 
There'd be an agreement from both parties to resolve their conflicts in a single court. The state ''justice'' can't really be considered justice, since in a huge amount of cases the state is related to one of the parties, and they don't follow the law of private property, they follow their own legislation, which is arbitrary and treats things that are not crimes as crimes, vice versa. They also have arbitrary punishment for crimes, they don't follow a logic at all. Have fun attending a state court if you are in a conflict with a state employee, there's multiple cases when they are judge and defendant of the same case. In a free market there'd be demand for justice and a supply, which would be way more efficient than the state, since they would actually have to provide a good service to exist, since they are not funded by theft. You should also know that most ''common sense'' arguments are leftist argument, since the left controls the majority's opinion.
2019-07-12 14:21
common sense in polish means zdrowy rozsądek- healthy point of view, if judges are corrupted in Brazil it means that your system is wrong and it should be fixed for example hooded courts
2019-07-12 14:27
#640
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Judges are not only corrupt in Brazil, they are corrupt in the entire world, and they have an incentive to be corrupt, because if the State is the defendant in a case, they would also be the judge of that case. And since they monopolize this sector, they have no incentive of doing a good job, because you can't choose another service or choose not to pay them. That's why it's impossible to defend any form of taxation, so it doesn't matter if you know that government intervention in healthcare, education etc. is bad if you still think they should intervene in justice, you'll still be a statist, just on a smaller level than the socialists.
2019-07-12 14:31
I am from Poland just like OP and I won't agree with this bullsh!t. I'm almost 29yo and I've noticed that poor/uneducated/unsuccessful people always talk sh!t about taxes, goverment etc. When I was 17 yo I was the same tbh. People feel like "I WOULD BE RICH IF GOVERMENT WOULDNT STEAL FROM ME". Focus on Your goals to achive whatever u want or cry about taxes and goverment, like its the reason why u're poor or u can't have what u want =.=
2019-07-11 11:35
#99
 | 
Brazil adre221 
EIther you have negative iq or you work for the government,
2019-07-11 11:56
#107
Xyp9x | 
Europe NiQa 
“poor/uneducated/unsuccessful” ... Nozick, Rand, Brook ... just a few people, from the top of my head, who talk/talked shit about taxes ... I wouldn’t call them anything you did
2019-07-11 12:10
The thing is - why would I waste my time talking about things I can't change, like taxes. World works this way and I can't change it, I don't like it but still I can't change it. More inteligent, successful people try to change it and still they can't, The thing is that atleast in my country people talk sh!t about goverment and taxes all the time and 95% of those people drive 1995 honda civic or some other old, shitty car. My point is that unsuccessful people always will find a way to talk sh!t about something to find an excuse for their failure. I'm not a politician so I don't know how this works so I wont talk about something I dont know. Everytime there is football world cup or smth, suddenly some of Your friends are experts about football. Same thing is about politics and goverment. I'm just not one of those people. You can't win with HLTV. There was a topic about "your car" years ago, I've posted proofs of my audi rs6 avant and people said that its my fathers money. Suddenly they had a picture of me in their head and they knew more about me than I do.
2019-07-11 12:23
#114
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You speak in fallacies. things doesn't change not because it's impossible to change, but because the vast majority is like you, when they see something wrong they turn their head down like the sheep they are, and accept it like it is.
2019-07-11 13:08
Well, call me whatever You wan't, I don't really care. I can spent my whole life on trying to change this and probably never will or I can spent my whole life about chasing my goals in life. I feel like I do my part as a human beeing since I spent alot of my time and money for some charity places that are important to me. As I said, I'm not a politician so I'm not an expert about taxes or anything like that. I don't want to be politician so I will let experts do their job. I won't tell Messi how to play football, I won't tell Brazilian goverment how to waste alot of money and possible income for the goverment. They did it perfectly after Olimipcs ;). The thing is - the only thing that I can't get back is time and I will do everything to be happy, live like I always wanted and do things that make me happy. So I will spent my time on those things. My old classmates were talking sh!t about things They didn't knew. They were no experts and They acted like They were/are (because they still do it). When summer comes, They will go to the bank to take a loan for vacation, while I think where should I go this year. Do You understand me? They're not happy in life, They spent alot of time about things They don't know instead of grinding in life or chasing goals. I don't wanna live their life and think about things that make me unhappy. I wanna do things that make me happy and that I love to do. edit: TLDR - I focus on my things in life which is making my life better and doing things I care about. I'm not like most people in so many ways, thats why most people drive shitty cars and need loans from bank to live. And people who know me wouldn't call me egoist since I do alot for charity. I just do what makes me happy. Have a nice day
2019-07-11 13:27
#118
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You can focus on what makes you happy in life and still be mindful of the truth. I don't care about politics and neither do I spend time on it, I have my own projects in life, however I still know the true nature of taxes and the government. You worded your first comment to make it seems that anyone who tries to discover this truth is uneducated and unsuccessful, and in order to be successful in life you have to take these things at face value and completely ignore these topics, which is simply not true. You don't need to care or spend time with politics, in fact you shouldn't, even. But being ignorant about it is a crucial mistake, and this is the reason politicians get away with anything these days, to be even more precise that's the kind of mentality that allows aberrations of institutions like the state to even exist in the first place.
2019-07-11 13:36
"I have my own projects in life, however I still know the true nature of taxes and the government." - I understand that You know a few things about politics, I don't. All I know is that I can drive on roads, I can walk on sidewalks, I can go to hospital and I don't pay for anything (my taxes already paid for it). There are new hospitals build every day, charity places get money from the goverment for food, clothes for poor kids or even power so those kids have light and They can read books. Kids like this atleast have a chance to get education, food etc and big part of it is the goverment. I understand what You mean, I really do. But I disagree with one thing You said in #120 - people I talked about didn't fail because of the goverment. They failed in life because instead of working harder to get more experience and better job in the future, They went to work in a factory for some sh!t money and They stayed there. They could work there and after hours learn things, get other experience for better job in the future, just like I did. I don't come from family with money, I come from poor family. All I had was good, honest and hardworking parents. They didn't earn much but They worked hard to buy me clothes or books to school. I didn't studied at some university because I had to work to get food. I had to get my experience outside of univerities and then prove every1 that I can make the same things at the same or bigger level than my colleagues from work. So no, goverment isnt the biggest reason why my friends from school failed. They didn't work hard enough. They had job offer to be a manager at some supermarket for "decent" money and They accepted it but They didn't do anything else to get better job.
2019-07-11 14:24
#158
 | 
Brazil adre221 
All those things you mentioned about the government is propaganda, they do this to justify their existence. If you analyze a bit more deeply, you'll see that every problem that you mention that the government appears to ''solve'', they either caused it directly or indirectly, or they are the ones preventing a solution because they make legislation so that they have a monopoly to such ''solution''. The state doesn't produce anything, they only take. They are the biggest cause of wealth and resource destruction in the entire world, those are the consequences of any type of government intervention. On the topic about your friends, point is, even if they are unambitious, they'd still be able to live a very rich life if it weren't for state intervention. The state is indeed responsible, directly or indirectly, for the destruction of a huge part of their wealth. Those factory jobs are badly paid only after factoring in all sorts of regulations, taxes, etc. Even then, they'd still lose a chunk of their money to inflation. This is the true nature of the state, a bunch of useless bureaucrats leeching of the majority's money, in order to maintain their position, they invest part of the money they steal into two things: Repression and propaganda. The way their propaganda works is legitimazing their position by doctrinating the majority of people to believe that they need to exist, they do that by monopolizing several critical services of the market, such as healthcare, making the people believe that such services only exists because of them. That is easy considering they have complete control over what schools teach. Repression is for the few people that dare defy them, since those people are small in number they can be taken out by brute force.
2019-07-11 15:24
This conversation is pointless. You're the guy who can talk about how shitty goverment is for hours and I am the guy that knows that goverment is shit but I rather to focus on nice things in life instead of thinking about goverment. I realize that I'd be much richer if not goverment, still don't give a fuk. I can eat anything I want, I can go japan for vacation without taking a loan from a bank, I can buy anything expensive or just sit down infront of tv and chill. At the end, I will be happy because I will always chase my goals in life.
2019-07-11 15:46
#164
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Reiterating my second comment, there is a difference between focusing on the nice things in life and turning a blind eye. It seems that you prefer to live in blissful ignorance of the wrong things that's happening just because you are satisfied with what you have. I hate politics, I despise even the existence of it, yet I know the importance of understanding what the state is, because it affects me directly. Ignoring what's happening just because I have a good life is the type of mentality that'll lead me to lose this comfortable way of living in the long run. You need to be smart and know what's happening, because given your previous comments, you don't know that yet, that's all.
2019-07-11 16:01
Its not like i dont give a fk and that, so no 'blind eye'. I just rather focus on things that I can change right at this moment, on things that are more important to me than some scumbag politician etc. I always wanted to learn not on my mistakes but mistakes of others. Many more experienced people tried to change those things, many important people with alot of connections and guess what, They did nothing. So I'm not gonna "turn blind eye" on those things, I'll just focus on my life and things that I can actually change for the better. Yes, I have a good life and I'll do anything to make it better. The thing is if I focus on work, investments etc like I do right now, my life will be better FOR SURE, 100%. So if my math is right - 100% is better than nothing. Just look how many people tried and did nothing. I'm not gonna waste my time on those stuff. Call me ignorant but this ignorant will visit 30 more countries in next 5 years, I've been in 43 and its not enough for me. Dude, I live moment by moment. My only long-term thinking is - securing my future and doing what I can to do the same for my family. And I'm pretty sure that I don't have to worry about retirement. edit: You have one life and the only person who can stop You from beeing who You want to be is You and Your choices. Someday You will be 80 years old and full of regrets or You will 80 yo and You will knew that You did everything for people You love, You made them better and You make their life better and easier. Its all about Your choices. Good life comes with hard work, unless You were born in money.
2019-07-11 22:53
#120
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Moreover, the people which you speak of, the biggest reason for their condition IS by far the state. They are robbed of a huge portion of their income through taxes, prevented to accumulate wealth through regulations, and the money they have left can't buy much because of the inflation (which is caused by the government printing money). Even after all these things, they still suffer crimes that occurs in huge part because in all societies what is followed is not the law, but the state's legislation, meaning that there are things that are not crimes that are considered crimes by the state, vice versa. Adding to that, there is a sense of impunity because true justice is not granted, instead, crimes are ''punished'' via state legislation, which is 100% arbitrary and almost always incorrect. So the people you speak about are not incompetents, and the reason you can succeed is because despite the state doing all these things to you, you can still accumulate wealth. Congrats, you are one of very few people that can. But being complacent and ignoring the problem won't make it go away, in fact it will make it get bigger, and the time may come that the taxes, regulations etc. will be so suffocating that you too won't be able to stay rich, and then you will be left at the same situation as your friends, with little hope to get back where you were.
2019-07-11 13:50
I didnt read all tldr but listen buddy if you remove taxes state still will have to print money, and possibly even more. So inflation will happen nevertheless. Dont copy pasta shit
2019-07-11 15:02
#155
 | 
Brazil adre221 
This isn't copy pasta, I wrote it all. Point is, the state shouldn't exist, you didn't get the message yet? Also inflation only happens because the state forces people to use their fake money, so they can fraud the people by printing paper as they please. In a free society people would use gold and other precious metals in their coins, preventing inflation.
2019-07-11 15:07
#163
 | 
Canada ProvexPyker 
0/8
2019-07-11 15:55
#165
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Don't have any arguments against it, huh?
2019-07-11 16:02
"Wan't"? Lmao, what is this shit?
2019-07-12 14:07
Also people You mentioned had experience with politics. I don't, thats why I said what I said. I'm just not experienced enough to talk about that. I can talk about CS because I follow the scene since CS 1.5. I can talk about football because I love it. I can talk about selling stuff or advertising them because this is what I do and I have experience in those things. I could also share my experience from traveling since I've been in 40+ countries. I just can't act like I know stuff about basketball because I don't. I've seen one game live in Los Angeles, this doesn't make me an expert.
2019-07-11 13:35
Mentioning Ayn Rand and expecting people not to burst at laughter and take you seriously AYYYY LMAOOOo Hilariously dumb comment comrade!
2019-07-12 08:25
#539
Xyp9x | 
Europe NiQa 
Taking a comment out of context is even dumber. ;) I didn’t propose that Objectivism or any other ideology is wrong or right. I just mentioned 3 people who are/were against taxation etc. , people who you can call a lot of things, but definitely not dumb/poor/uneducated.
2019-07-12 11:00
You call them a lot of things, like, complete morons. Have a nice day! -Your friendly neighbourhood anarchocommunist
2019-07-12 11:51
#577
Xyp9x | 
Europe NiQa 
What does it have to do with the comment you responded to? Because even morons =/= poor/uneducated/unsuccessful ... which we can see in this world every day. ...
2019-07-12 12:40
+1 but he will grow up (hopefully)
2019-07-11 12:12
Roman Kluska
2019-07-12 13:49
nope.. they should just be much more progressive lowest income earners should barely pay any highest should pay >90%
2019-07-11 11:38
#98
 | 
Brazil adre221 
flat 0% for all
2019-07-11 11:55
fuck your shit up then. Same arguments were used before 30s depression, post-reagan recession and the 2008 recession afaik. Dont let that shit happen again because of Fox fucking News
2019-07-11 16:38
#497
 | 
Brazil adre221 
All 3 were caused by government intervention. Recession happens when the economic bubble caused by inflation bursts, the longer the inflation lasted, the bigger the impact the recession will last. When you end inflation recession will hit immediatly after but that's not caused by right-wing politics, it's the inevitable consequence of inflation, the sooner it happens the less harmful it'll be. There is no Fox News in Brazil genius.
2019-07-12 08:05
The bubble wouldnt get so big if there were more regulations, dude. Let me guess, its not Fox news but PragerU? Watch these and tell me what you think about them: youtube.com/watch?v=YA97I8a8My8 youtu.be/EM7BgrddY18?t=1282 watch till 25:22
2019-07-12 12:20
#568
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The bubble is prolonged by regulations. I don't watch PragerU, and neither PragerU or Fox News are libertarian. Libertarianism bases itself on the Austrian School of Economics, also, if you are going to be linking videos, I'd be easier if I just linked you dozens of books instead of making the arguments myself.
2019-07-12 12:24
Well, the regulations are to limit absurd no-limit-speculations by f.e. wall street and as such blowing up the bubble to an unrealistic size, are they not? And at least watch the first video, dude.
2019-07-12 12:26
#574
 | 
Brazil adre221 
All forms of government intervention, including regulations, causes a misrepresentation of what the actual condition of the market is, which leads to bad investments, prolonging the bubble. Also, government intervention burns capital, which increases the impact of the bubble greatly. The first video attacks a point which I don't defend, since government economists are actually the opposite of what I base myself in.
2019-07-12 12:37
Well, it seems that those economists who care about the well-being of the lower and middle-class advocate for huge taxes on the rich. In all honesty thats from a short google search I did just now. Prove me wrong by all means but its not like there is overwhelming consensus within the economists profession that there should be as little tax as possible.
2019-07-12 12:59
+123
2019-07-11 16:37
comunist, reported
2019-07-11 18:23
#368
 | 
Canada aSweetPatato 
upper class people pay too much, REALLY rich people pay much too little by dodge taxes. valvo nerf pls
2019-07-11 18:49
#97
 | 
Germany SL3ID3R 
Labour is theft mens))
2019-07-11 11:53
because we have to pay for fucking women sitting their pregnant ass at home and sick people sitting their weak ass home and pensioned people sitting their old ass at home
2019-07-11 12:06
#113
 | 
Brazil adre221 
>theft >charity, family, private pension choose one of two options
2019-07-11 13:04
#106
 | 
Poland insomnia_ 
name checks out
2019-07-11 12:09
#110
 | 
Brazil fuNNa 
taxes are useless nowadays there are here for making citizens never become independent
2019-07-11 12:18
no, police, army is always needed but these are only things state should take care of.
2019-07-11 18:24
#345
 | 
Brazil fuNNa 
a state can go into endless debt
2019-07-11 18:32
bait or just stupid?
2019-07-11 12:19
arguments or just retarded ad hominam?
2019-07-11 18:25
Income taxes pay for everything you see around you. Are they too high. Sure. But you can’t fix people’s greed for money
2019-07-11 13:28
#121
 | 
United States Troglxdyte 
What is VAT? And what about wealth taxes, a tax on wealth that isn't being put to use. So billionaires will be motivated to put the cash laying around into use and create more jobs?
2019-07-11 13:51
billionaires dont create jobs, demand from society, from the market, creates jobs. billionaires only use that opportunity to make money that otherwise would go to the people doing the jobs. this is called extracting surplus value.
2019-07-11 13:53
#123
 | 
United States Troglxdyte 
Billionaires have the ability to create businesses which employ ppl, therefore creating jobs
2019-07-11 13:53
anyone has the ability to create a business it costs like 10 dollars.
2019-07-11 13:53
#128
 | 
United States Troglxdyte 
If only i knew it only costed 10 dollars to employ people
2019-07-11 13:54
you make money by employing people, they generate more value than they cost, otherwise you wouldnt hire them.
2019-07-11 13:54
#132
 | 
United States Troglxdyte 
10 dollars to start a business, could the business compete with other businesses in the same field made by billionaires?
2019-07-11 13:56
and thats when we get to the core issue. without lawyers, we wouldnt need lawyers.
2019-07-11 13:56
there are millions of ppl in our society who are basically useless if not for the exact status quo that it is their job to maintain.
2019-07-11 13:56
#145
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Very rich, coming from a SOCIALIST.
2019-07-11 14:45
socialism is all about the workers brah
2019-07-11 14:46
#147
 | 
Brazil adre221 
That's what you've been brainwashed to believe. Socialism is all about the worthless maggots leeching off the population. Those maggots being the state.
2019-07-11 14:47
im not brainwashed, youre brainwashed xd
2019-07-11 14:48
#150
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You believe in theories made by pseudo-philosophers such as Marx and unknowingly support the biggest imposed elites in the entire world, while putting yourself at the same side of the political spectrum as the ones who are known to deny reality in name of forced equality. You are a puppet of the state. You are brainwashed.
2019-07-11 14:54
nope, i dont even identify as a socialist, but keep on sticking labels on things you dont understand, its how idiots deal with life.
2019-07-11 16:16
#171
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Leftist and socialists are one and the same. I don't really think it's worth trying to put reason in your head because you appear to be the type that is too far gone, it's a waste of time.
2019-07-11 16:18
i dont think im a leftist either. i think i am a person with a brain who can make up his own goddamn mind instead of brainlessly swallowing the bullshit other people tell you.
2019-07-11 16:18
you are too far gone and i am wasting my time on you. brainwashed capitalist you probably dont even own the house you live in.
2019-07-11 16:19
you just come in here to accuse me of being a socialist and throw shit everywhere because you are the brainwashed idiot here. you have 0 argument. go read a fucking book. i can recommend one called "das kapital"
2019-07-11 16:20
#190
 | 
Brazil adre221 
''I'm not a socialist'' Literally recommends a book by Marx KKKKKKKK this guy has been refuted for centuries by any author with a functioning brain, there is only fallacies in his ''arguments''
2019-07-11 16:29
it hasnt been refuted that capitalism exploits workers. or that it removes men further from the fruits of their labor. or that it provides perverse initiatives where people can individually gain something by acting agaisnt the common interest.
2019-07-11 16:30
the reason you dont want to believe marx is that what he says goes against your brainwashing. youve been programmed to hate him because he says the truth. the truth is dangerous to your corporate overlords.
2019-07-11 16:31
#292
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You do actually know that libertarianism is STRICTLY against corporativism, right?
2019-07-11 17:36
no it isnt, it seeks to abolish all instutions that can stand against corporativism
2019-07-11 17:37
if you can name 1 author that refuted anything marx wrote i will buy you a beer
2019-07-11 16:36
#291
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Ludwig von Mises
2019-07-11 17:35
mises.org/wire/mises-myth-marx i dont see any arguments refuted or structural criticism, only ad hominem
2019-07-11 17:38
#299
 | 
Brazil adre221 
2019-07-11 17:40
cost and value are not the same in marxist theory. it only concerns with cost, and how not all of the cost of a product goes to the laborers and to the purchase of materials, there is extra money that flows out to the capitalists. marx didnt concern himself with notions of absolute value. it is entirely irrelevant to any of his points what the actual value of products is, if such a thing exists. the point is that the money that is now being paid out as profit to investors and owners and stockholders, should go to the workers, minus a small wage for administrative work. the part of the revenue that now flows out of the business at the top, should go to the bottom. because the owners and shareholders should be the same people as the ones doing the work. "So in the above case, he would hold that the man who has run the risk, borrowed the money, bears the responsibility, manages the enterprise and owns the tools, should receive only a salary and no more. We will deal with this idea in a moment. Let us concentrate on the 50¢ mince pie. At this price, the owner and manager can pay himself a salary and in addition can accrue a profit if business is brisk." this is false. according to marx, the workers should own the loan and the tools as a collective, and the manager is just an administrative assistent, a worker as well, who gets a wage for his work and also owns an equal share of the loan and the tools. this already reeks of Randian bullshit. trying to purport the exploiters as being the victims
2019-07-11 17:51
seems like this guy just didnt get the point of marxism at all the points he argues are true, but they do not apply to marxist theory. they apply to our current capitalism system.
2019-07-11 17:54
"But, under Marxian or Fabian socialism, both industries would be owned and operated by the government; the taxpayers would underwrite the costs of both, and thus all persons would help to pay for igloos, of which few, if any, are wanted." again false, in a marxist system, the government would ask the people how many igloos they want and then order that amount. from each according to ability, to each according to need. without need for igloos, no igloos would be made. if there is no demand for igloos, they wont improve the living conditions of the workers, which is the goal of marxism. this point only applies to USSR style totalitarian planned economy communism
2019-07-11 17:57
you believe in bullshit capitalists wrote so you would support a system based on exploiting you instead of hanging all of them and taking back whats rightfully yours. you are a fucking brainwashed puppet. stfu.
2019-07-11 16:18
#175
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The only exploitative relationship is between the state and it's citizens, since the state steals from people and violate their property in many different ways. If you believe there is exploitation between VOLUNTARY transactions, which are the basis of capitalism, you are an idiot. PS: A society can't be capitalist if there exists a state.
2019-07-11 16:21
youre literally retarded. eand.co/how-capitalism-taught-americans-.. here go educate yourself brainwashed idiot.
2019-07-11 16:21
Still wasting your time trying to get people on HLTV to change their minds? :p
2019-07-11 16:22
i know he wont change his mind, i will just keep going until he accepts that im the smarter person in this conversation and stops replying. and then maybe next time he will act slightly less retarded when he accuses people of SOCIALISM xd
2019-07-11 16:23
Shut up socialist! Honestly though, do you think he'll stop?
2019-07-11 16:27
yes if i beat down on him hard enough
2019-07-11 16:27
Eh...? Good luck with that~!
2019-07-11 16:28
we have too many people in our society who stand idly by when retards spew bullshit everywhere. and thats all it takes for the retards to win.
2019-07-11 16:28
I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong, but you know you're trying to do it on HLTV right...?
2019-07-11 16:30
best place in the world to do it.
2019-07-11 16:30
You're trying to fight a forest fire with nothing but a cup filled with water
2019-07-11 16:32
one cup at a time
2019-07-11 16:33
On cup per tree maybe.
2019-07-11 16:33
but if i can save just one tree it is worth it
2019-07-11 16:34
I admire your optimism
2019-07-11 16:36
i think thats realism. optimism would be to do nothing and hope it works out.
2019-07-11 16:37
It depends, but I'm also taking this being HLTV in account when I say it.
2019-07-11 16:39
places like this and 4chan are the only places on the internet where people can speak their mind without being afraid of censorship. and i dont like 4chan
2019-07-11 16:32
#184
 | 
Brazil adre221 
goodreads.com/list/show/1653.The_Austria.. Here, 84 books. Two can play this game.
2019-07-11 16:26
read the fucking article i linked you idiot. its a lot shorter than 84 books full of trickle down economics bullshit.
2019-07-11 16:27
if your house is on fire and i charge you 10.000 dollars for a bucket of water, and you accept voluntarily, you are still being exploited. fucking idiot.
2019-07-11 16:22
#259
 | 
Brazil adre221 
How much would the water have to cost in order for it not to be exploitation?
2019-07-11 17:01
the same as when your house is not on fire
2019-07-11 17:04
#265
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Prices are entirely subjective, water on the desert is more expensive on the desert than it is in a regular place, so in your little marxist brain anything that doesn't fit your subjective sense of fairness is exploitation. If what you said is truth price for everything would have to be fixed, since changing prices based on circunstances would be ''exploitation'' and therefore a crime. It's time to grow out of your marxist fantasy kid.
2019-07-11 17:08
yes it costs more to provide water in the desert so prices can be higher there. you seem to not understand what exploitative means. maybe read that article i linked you hours ago.
2019-07-11 17:09
#268
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Define crime, define exploitation.
2019-07-11 17:10
for a definition of exploitation please consult "das kapital"
2019-07-11 17:12
#273
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Give me a definition, it's not hard, are you incapable of doing it?
2019-07-11 17:14
#275
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Still sure you're not a socialist?
2019-07-11 17:16
just because i link a website called socialist doesnt mean i am one. just because i recognize capitalism exploits people doesnt mean i am against all forms of private property.
2019-07-11 17:20
#281
 | 
Brazil adre221 
''And because exploitation is at the root of capitalism, it follows that the only way to do away with exploitation is to achieve an entirely different society--socialism'' The only ''logical'' conclusion to your ''argument''(which is imbued with fallacies anyway) is socialism
2019-07-11 17:23
thats what marx said not what i said, i just gave you the definition. imo we could do away with the exploitation by just publicly hanging the 10% worst white collar criminals every year. put the fear of god in them.
2019-07-11 17:25
you need to stop trying to push people into neat little square boxes, its never going to fit.
2019-07-11 17:20
for definition of crime, consult your country's law books.
2019-07-11 17:12
if there is a huge drought, prices could also go up. thats not exploitation. thats simple supply and demand. there is less water, and more demand, which has to all be satisfied or people or animals will die and crops will fail. so to fulfill all demand, water will have to be won from less ideal sources, which costs more money. for example buying it abroad or installing extra filtration plants. exploitation is when a farmaceutical company sees that the patents for 2 of its drugs are about to run out, so they make a new pill with the only difference being that it combines both of the previous pills active substances, and they get a new patent and increase the price by 1000%.
2019-07-11 17:16
#279
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You're making a bunch of false equivalences, the last example is not ''exploitation'', it's a clearly the state violating the private property of innocent people via ''intelectual property'' legislation. Since you can't own something that's not scarce, intelectual property doesn't exist. Patenting a pill is the crime here.
2019-07-11 17:21
sure i agree there, but if there was complete free market libertarian capitalism, the farma company could simply send its private army against anyone who dares to compete against them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_C..
2019-07-11 17:22
#284
 | 
Brazil adre221 
''founded by a government-directed amalgamation of several rival Dutch trading companies '' Literally the first thing I saw when I opened the page. I think you actually have leftist induced brain cancer. It's impossible for a company to be agressive and libertarian at the same time, by definition. It's also impossible for a company to be government directed and libertarian at the same time, for VERY obvious reasons.
2019-07-11 17:26
the only role the govt had was to bring a couple rich guys togother and say 'hey go found a company to fuck shit up in the indies, you have our blessing, we wont stop you' "In its foreign colonies, the VOC possessed quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[56] negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies." its the perfect example of how exploitative libertarianism is "The company has been criticised for its monopolistic policy, exploitation, colonialism, uses of violence, and slavery. "
2019-07-11 17:33
#289
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Define libertarianism
2019-07-11 17:34
stateless capitalism
2019-07-11 17:36
#296
 | 
Brazil adre221 
No, that's anarchocapitalism. Libertarianism is being against ALL forms of agression, agression in this case is defined as a violation of the private property of innocents.
2019-07-11 17:37
so if this "libertarian" thing would be instated, everything would forever be the property of the person it belonged to at that random arbitrary moment in time? so all the dictators in africa with blood of millions on their hands would still own palaces and the people would own nothing and they are not allowed to do anything about it. retarded ideology. pacificism doesnt work against people with actual power. go watch game of thrones.
2019-07-11 17:40
#300
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Yeah, no. Don't assume things. I can explain in details what a libertarian society is, but reply to me in a different comment chain as this one is getting narrow.
2019-07-11 17:43
what do you mean no. i applied what you said and it results in a ludicrously static and unfair situation. its even more ridiculous than communism
2019-07-11 17:48
maybe you shouldnt stop reading at the first thing that triggers you, you might actually learn something
2019-07-11 17:32
and ideally the water is provided at cost price by a non profit organization because water is a basic human need.
2019-07-11 17:07
capitalism is defined as an economical system where thea means of production are private property. an anarchic state without government would also have private property. and a capitalist state with a government has private property. therefore the existence of a capitalist economic system is independent from the form of state that this economic model is used in. therefore youre an idiot. QED.
2019-07-11 16:25
#204
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You are making a strawman fallacy by giving different definitions to the words I'm using Capitalism = Accumulation of capital through voluntary transactions Private property = The right to have exclusive control of something Since for the mere existence of a state there has to be an agression (theft) it can't be capitalistic You are a marxist, so you use different terms, but given that you are dumb you didn't notice that and made a series of strawman arguments. Good job.
2019-07-11 16:36
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. inb4 wikipedia is wrong
2019-07-11 16:38
#227
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Since it went right through your head I'll say it again: It's a different definition from what I'm using. If you use a different definition for the same word I'm using to try to refute my argument you'll be refuting an argument that I did not make. There, I explained it to you like you were a toddler. Let's hope it's within your intelligence capacity to understand it now.
2019-07-11 16:44
you are using your own made up definition. wikipedia has the correct definition. look up on online dictionary merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalis.. an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
2019-07-11 16:46
#240
 | 
Brazil adre221 
There is no such thing as a ''correct'' definition dumbass, and if you haven't noticed already, ALL words are made up. If I clearly define one word as having one meaning, and construct my argument with that word having that meaning, then if you change the meaning of that word to attack my argument you'll be making an strawman fallacy. First I explained like you were a toddler, now I explained it like you were a baby, I'm sure you'll still find a way to fuck up and fail to understand.
2019-07-11 16:50
you wont get very far in conversations with people if you use your own made up definitions for things, they wont have any idea wtf you are talking about and thats not their problem, its yours.
2019-07-11 16:52
#247
 | 
Brazil adre221 
#204 literally defined it at the start of the conversation, making it very easy to understand my argument
2019-07-11 16:53
i dont care, you should use the correct definition of words
2019-07-11 16:55
#254
 | 
Brazil adre221 
As I said before, there is no ''correct'' definition of words, stop being an idiot, and since I very clearly defined the meaning of the words I used, it was very easy to understand my argument. There are multiple concepts for the same word, I used the Austrian concept of capitalism, and now since you see that the argument I made is irrefutable you resort to sophistry by making strawman fallacies.
2019-07-11 16:57
you conveniently leave out the part of the definition that clearly shows that capitalism is inherently exploitative in your partial definition. austrian school doesnt change the fact that capitalism is defined by private ownership of means of production.
2019-07-11 17:01
#262
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I utilize the Austrian definition because the Marxist one is inaccurate for the concept I'm trying to define, the Marxist definition is more like corporativism. You need to understand that the words I use doesn't matter if you can understand what I'm saying, which unless you are a complete idiot, you should. So ignore if I'm using your definition of capitalism and try to refute the concept behind my argument.
2019-07-11 17:04
you dont have an argument. all you did was call me a socialist and give incorrect definitions. and you made 1 point that there cannot be exploitation in voluntary transactions that i already refuted. but if you want to start actually bringing an argument now, go ahead.
2019-07-11 17:06
lets hope you stop acting like youre so fucking smart now and accept youre wrong.
2019-07-11 16:46
if hypothetically we put all the billionaires to the guillotine, just as a thought experiment, then there would be no competition that can go billions into debt before becoming profitable, then people without capital could start businesses and compete. in other words, its the man keeping you down, man.
2019-07-11 13:58
#305
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I'll reply to this comment because the other chain was getting narrow. ''so if this "libertarian" thing would be instated, everything would forever be the property of the person it belonged to at that random arbitrary moment in time?'' No, if a certain resource has no owner, and you utilize that resource as a means to an end, you become the owner of the resource you used. Meaning that if I chop 5 trees that has no owner, that wood is my private property. However, I can transfer private property (which is defined as the exclusive right to something) to another person via voluntary trade. Meaning that you can't be the rightful owner of something if you took it by force from it's previous owner. ''so all the dictators in africa with blood of millions on their hands would still own palaces and the people would own nothing and they are not allowed to do anything about it.'' With what I said before in mind, it's obvious why this statement is ridiculous, even though those properties are in the dictators POSSESSION, it was never their PRIVATE PROPERTY, and that property still belongs to their rightful owners (the people). Libertarianism is not pacifistic, since it DOES uses violence against guilty people, as a sort of punishment. For example, in a libertarian societies murderers would be killed, in a pacifistic society, they would not.
2019-07-11 17:56
okay so all the white people who went to america, put fences up around the land of the native americans, are then rightful owners of that land because no one told them they couldnt take it? again, bullshit. what if i chop down all the trees as fast as i can and dont plant any new ones? now i own all the wood and i can charge whatever i want for it. might makes right. that is libertarianism. its a very violent ideology. and btw if there is no state, who is going to stop people from using violence to take property from others? who is there to make sure everyone only has what is "rightfully" theirs (i put rightfully in quotes there because its a hideously orwellian use of the word. its not rightful at all. its just arbitrary. )
2019-07-11 18:01
#311
 | 
Brazil adre221 
''okay so all the white people who went to america, put fences up around the land of the native americans, are then rightful owners of that land because no one told them they couldnt take it? again, bullshit.'' Wrong again. If the land had a previous owner and it was taken by force, the ''white people'' wouldn't have the right to that land's private property, even if they were in possession of it. ''what if i chop down all the trees as fast as i can and dont plant any new ones? now i own all the wood and i can charge whatever i want for it. '' That's impossible, since not only you'd have to have some sort of alien ultra techonology, but you'd very quickly run into private property. Also this would obviously be a violation of the private property of everyone around you, so it'd be a crime to do so. ''and btw if there is no government, who is going to stop people from using violence to take property from others?'' It's a contradiction to think that the government are enforcers of private property since the condition of their existence is violating the property of innocents. Since there'd be a market demand for justice, there'd sure to be supply for it.
2019-07-11 18:05
but who is going to make sure that things go to their rightful owners? the state? "Since there'd be a market demand for justice, there'd sure to be supply for it." that page about the VOC shows nicely what happens when justice is dispensed by the private sector. the worst of all possible worlds. genocide, slavery. without a government, whoever hires the biggest army can violate everyone elses property. there is no justice possible in that scenario. you could also look at what USA military contractors do in iraq and afghanistan. those guys are animals. or at private prisons in USA.
2019-07-11 18:08
"With what I said before in mind, it's obvious why this statement is ridiculous, even though those properties are in the dictators POSSESSION, it was never their PRIVATE PROPERTY, and that property still belongs to their rightful owners (the people)." no, because they had those palaces built and lived in them, by your tree chopping logic, it is their property. this hypothetical dude converted marble into a palace. he bought that marble or had it cut out of a quarry by his own companies. and then he paid people to build that palace. so its his rightful property.
2019-07-11 18:03
#313
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Not really, since it would be funded on stolen money. If I robbed someone and bought something with it, I wouldn't be the owner of the thing I bought.
2019-07-11 18:06
lets say your hypothetical libertarian society is in a desert and i find a HUGE aquifer with enough water for hundreds of years for the whole country and i pump it all out into a huge tank i built and then i only sell it during droughts and charge people ludicrous amounts of money for it, that would be rightful use of my property. and it would be exploitation.
2019-07-11 18:05
#314
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Was this aquifer already being used by other people?
2019-07-11 18:08
nope i found it all by myself while exploring your moms cave
2019-07-11 18:09
#316
 | 
Brazil adre221 
what are you, 12?
2019-07-11 18:09
sorry couldnt resist. please tell me though, seriously, would that be rightful use of my property or not.
2019-07-11 18:10
#336
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I don't think this is pratically possible, viable or profitable by any margin. First of all you would have to find an aquifer that covers an entire country that hasn't been used or found by anyone before AND doesn't reach beneath any private property. That alone is impossible. Furthermore, you'd have to invest BILLIONS just to get all the water to the tank. Now you are billions on the red and if you are not already bankrupt, you'd still have to hope you're the only water source available, which is again impossible since no one knew about this aquifer beforehand, so everyone should've already died of thirst by then. Even if by now everything is according to plan, which is impossible, you'd only be able to sell in drought periods, and since you are selling it very expensive, few people are going to be able to buy it, so give goodbye to making all those billions you spent back, since you have so much water it'd be much more profitable to sell it at very low prices since you are not going to be able to sell it all anyways, if you are going to be making scummy practices like these people would be importing water and boycotting your brand. But neither of this would be legal because just the ammount of externality you'd create by doing something as massive as this would result in a huge violation of property of anyone even remotely close to you, so in order to do something like this, you'd have to be a billionaire, have everyone living at least 1000 miles away from you to not generate externality, and then proceed to make the most pathetic evil plan in the history of mankind resulting in losing your entire wealth. TLDR: No
2019-07-11 18:28
"the ammount of externality you'd create by doing something as massive as this would result in a huge violation of property of anyone even remotely close to you, so in order to do something like this, you'd have to be a billionaire, have everyone living at least 1000 miles away from you to not generate externality" like i said, a huge underground water basin in the desert. lets state furthermore that hypothetically i cant influence anyones ground water levels by draining it. there is no ground water in the desert anyway. by now im pretty sure this evil plan would according to your ideology be justified. therefore your ideology is evil and i reject it. also i think youre underestimating how much people would be willing to pay me for water when they are almost dying of thirst and i have a huge amount of water and a private army.
2019-07-11 18:33
#347
 | 
Brazil adre221 
So you are saying that it's possible to drain a ''HUGE aquifer with enough water for hundreds of years for the whole country'' without generating any type of externality, or interfering with other people's private property? If it goes below someone else's property, even on the underground, it'd still be violating it.
2019-07-11 18:33
no. im asking, if it were possible, hypothetically, if we just take that as given, would it be justified for me to take so much water (all of it) just because i "found it first" and have the means to take it all
2019-07-11 18:34
#351
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Only if you actually managed to appropriate it to an end, meaning that if I cut 1000 trees that doesn't belong to anybody and didn't generate any type of externality to the people around me, the result of that work would be mine. If I made a fence around the 1000 trees however, the trees would not be mine. The fence would. Libertarians follow the ethics of private property, it dictates what's a crime and what's not a crime, it doesn't dictate morality, so if someone is doing something you consider immoral but is not harming other people (violating their property) while doing so, you can't use violence against these people.
2019-07-11 18:37
so if i cut down all those trees really fast and theres no one else around they are all mine
2019-07-11 18:38
even though that rainforest has been there since literally before humans existed on this planet.
2019-07-11 18:39
#356
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Rights are derived from human reason. Therefore, it's impossible for trees and for animals to have rights. If you cut down 10000km2 of rain forest though, you'd certainly be causing some sort of externality, so it wouldn't be allowed.
2019-07-11 18:40
who is going to stop me and my private army? i have the biggest private army because im the richest billionaire. ill cut down any tree i like. who is going to not allow it? people weaker than me? i crush them.
2019-07-11 18:41
rights arent derived from reason, or from god, or anything else. rights are derived from might. from practical power in the real world that is used to actively defend the people that claim to have those rights against people who claim they dont. be that military or economic power.
2019-07-11 18:43
#361
 | 
Brazil adre221 
So you're saying that if I'm strong enough to take something from someone by force I have a right to whatever I took?
2019-07-11 18:45
no im saying that that is the only possible logical consequence of the system you propose might makes absolute right.
2019-07-11 18:46
whoever hires a private army can do anything they want to anyone that has a smaller private army than them. and the guy with the biggest private army can do anything he wants and take anything. that guy makes all the rules.
2019-07-11 18:49
#377
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You are describing the state.
2019-07-11 18:58
EXACTLY NOW YOU START TO GET IT. LIBERTARIANISM CAN ONLY LEAD TO A NEW STATE.
2019-07-11 19:00
sorry for caps
2019-07-11 19:00
and coincidentally that is exactly like the world we live in right now except the armies arent hired by 1 person but by governments. usually. except in south america and africa. so your ideology wouldnt change anything, just saying. its just as evil as capitalism.
2019-07-11 18:51
#379
 | 
Brazil adre221 
A Libertarian society cannot exist with an institution like the state. If a state exists, it's not libertarianism.
2019-07-11 18:59
therefore libertarianism cannot exist.
2019-07-11 19:00
in the power vaccuum caused by absence of a state, a new state will arise.
2019-07-11 19:01
#395
 | 
Brazil adre221 
This is a fallacy, the state only exists because our culture accepts it, you are talking like the state will always exist and that's an absolute truth, where it isn't. In fact, in a culturally libertarian society, it would not be viable for the state to exist, since propaganda are their main source of life. In raw power, they lose to overrall population.
2019-07-11 19:04
if you would dismantle the state right now in brazil, the military would instate a new state within 5 days. by force.
2019-07-11 19:04
in a libertarian society there is no one with enough power to stop the most powerful man in the society from forming a new state. this is axiomatic.
2019-07-11 19:05
in fact i think you will find that the narco states in SA are a nice example of what would happen if your theory would be implemented. chaos and barbarism.
2019-07-11 18:52
#380
 | 
Brazil adre221 
No, since those are STATES, a society cannot be libertarian with a state.
2019-07-11 18:59
no there are whole sections of rainforest where there is no state, only cartels and contras.
2019-07-11 19:01
#389
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Those cartels and contras are the state.
2019-07-11 19:01
no they are corporations with private militias like the VOC
2019-07-11 19:02
#397
 | 
Brazil adre221 
State is an institution that has the monopoly of force. This definition can be applied to these cartels.
2019-07-11 19:05
the dutch state did not have a monopoly on violence when the VOC existed, yet it was still a state.
2019-07-11 19:06
#402
 | 
Brazil adre221 
That's because they acted on different areas, if you dissect both, you'll se they are exactly the same, except one is legitimized by the society while the other is not.
2019-07-11 19:07
there is no such thing as legitimacy of power structures, they just exist.
2019-07-11 19:08
you keep reasoning from absolutist christian perspective that is 300 years outdated
2019-07-11 19:08
in fact monopoly on violence only applies to modern western states and even then there are counter examples. the USA doesnt have a monopoly on violence. they subcontract violence
2019-07-11 19:07
you could define any state as a company with a private military and anyone with land and a private military as a state
2019-07-11 19:04
i choose to dictate that that is immoral and your ideology is wrong not everything on earth is property of people. we are stewards of this planet, not owners. not kings.
2019-07-11 18:40
#359
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Libertarianism is not an ideology, it's an irrefutable idea based on ethics, declaring yourself against libertarianism is a performative contradition, since the act of argumentaning itself has a transcendental condition of acknowledging self-property, from which private property is derived.
2019-07-11 18:42
i refute it. it is wrong and evil. i do not acknowledge your warped idea of property that whoever says "MINE" first gets to have something that has been a common good for 3 billion years, shared between living things on earth.
2019-07-11 18:44
and i dont care about how many complicated words you try to put in one sentence either
2019-07-11 18:45
#364
 | 
Brazil adre221 
What complicated words?
2019-07-11 18:45
performative contradition transcendental condition of acknowledging self-property honestly i have no clue of what the fuck you try to say here but it doesnt matter either
2019-07-11 18:46
#371
 | 
Brazil adre221 
perfomative contradition = when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the presuppositions of asserting it transcendental condition = I use this in the sense that in order to make an argument, it's necessary to have ownership over your own body acknowledging self-property = Knowing you have the exclusive rights to your own body, this is proven because if you weren't the owner of your body, you'd have to ask permission from the owner for using it, which is impossible since you'd have to use your body to do that, meaning that in every argumentation it's to be concluded that you have ownership of your body
2019-07-11 18:53
"acknowledging self-property = Knowing you have the exclusive rights to your own body, this is proven because if you weren't the owner of your body, you'd have to ask permission from the owner for using it, " this is clearly bullshit and if you even have 10 braincells you would know that immediately. you dont HAVE to ask permission to use something that is not yours. you can just take it. there is no magic power stopping you from doing things that arent allowed by libertarianism. therefore that whole paragraph you copy pasted is completely meaningless. it proves nothing. its air blowing out your ass. and if you cant prove self property then you cant prove private property either.
2019-07-11 18:56
#376
 | 
Brazil adre221 
You are confusing ''possession'' with ''private property'', if something is someone else's property, I have to ask permission to use it, if you take it by force, you'd have possession of that something, but it WOULD STILL NOT belong to you, it would belong to it's rightful owner. As in regards to your own body, only you can be it's rightful owner, you are not only in possession of it, but you have ownership over it.
2019-07-11 18:57
no. if something is my property. lets say i have a copy of csgo. and you hack my steam account and start playing on it without permission. then you just appropriated that account. its now yours, until i contact valve services and get it back. there is no final ledger where god keeps track of which things really belong to whom. there is only what you are holding in your hands right now.
2019-07-11 18:58
the whole concept of "rightful" owner does not exist. there are just people who possess things temporarily.
2019-07-11 18:59
#405
 | 
Brazil adre221 
That's because you use the marxist term of private property, which is the same as possession, libertarians define private property as the exclusive right to a scarce resource, utilizing this definition you can deduct that even if your property is stolen from you, you still have a right to it.
2019-07-11 19:11
in libertarian system only the person with the biggest army can actually claim his rights so nobody else has any rights to anything
2019-07-11 19:28
you only have rights if someone enforces them for you, a state with a military
2019-07-11 19:28
and if its not justified then who is going to stop me?
2019-07-11 18:35
or lets say i "find" 10.000km^2 of uninhabited unclaimed rainforest, if i could chop down all the trees, and i did that before anyone else came to contest my claim, would that be justified? it doesnt matter to your ideology that i murder 10.000 species of animals that only existed in that piece of rainforest, or that i am accelerating climate change which harms everyone. ultimately your ideology is just a childlike rejection of any responsibility
2019-07-11 18:37
but anyway im not asking you if its economically feasible, im asking if it would be allowed. and if not, who is going to stop me and my private army.
2019-07-11 18:33
#408
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Libertarianism is based on argumentation ethics, from which the law of private property is derived. Argumentation ethics proves that the conclusion of every exchange of propositions is that both parties have a right of exclusive control to their own bodies, and not only possession of them, since only them could possibly be the legitimate owner of their own bodies. Anything else would be impossible. That's where the right to self-property comes from, and from that you can derive original appropriation from, where you use your body to allocate scarce resources to an end, effectively taking ownership of that resource. Any proposition that negates this is a performative contradition, since in order for you to make this proposition you have to come with the agreement that you own your body. Meaning that libertarianism follows an objective ethic that if followed correctly, avoids all conflict, and is irrefutable, since even the act of denying it is a contradition on itself. This has nothing to do with a subjective conjunction of morals or personal values, this is a rational and logical a priori conclusion that is made in every argumentation.
2019-07-11 19:19
if i have a big private army and i make you my slave then i am in control of your body and therefore i am its owner. therefore your argument cannot be true. it is not impossible for me to be the owner of someone else's body. you have no right to self property if you are a slave.
2019-07-11 19:31
#415
 | 
Brazil adre221 
No, you'd only be in possession of it, from a ethical standpoint, your actions would not be justified. From what you're saying, it's like ethics doesn't exist and everyone can do what they want as long as they have the power to.
2019-07-11 19:31
what is ethics? i have an army and you dont.
2019-07-11 19:32
#419
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The right to self property comes from ethics, just because I am in possession of something, doesn't mean I have the rights to it. If I steal from you, I don't have the rights of what I stole, I have possession of the item, but I don't own it. That's what you fail to understand. Even if I'm a slave, I have a right to my own body, even if it's in possession of someone else. Having these facts in mind, and knowing the austrian definition of private property, libertarianism is irrefutable.
2019-07-11 19:35
this absolute right you speak of is an outdated concept based on belief in god who gives out absolute rights. i dont believe in gods or in your god given rights. i only believe in the rights that i have that are upheld by the state i live in, by extension of the people that live in it that collectively believe those rights are good to have and pay for a military and police force to uphold those rights.
2019-07-11 19:37
#427
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's not an outdated concept, in fact it's very, very recent. What you speak of are rights given by god, but libertarian theory derives right from human reason, not from god. The ''rights'' given by the state are arbitrary and they are contradictory, since following the state legislation does not prevent conflict, it causes it.
2019-07-11 19:41
but without a state, who is going to uphold your rights when someone attempts to violate them?
2019-07-11 19:42
#433
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Anyone who follows ethics and is powerful enough to do so, including yourself. There'd certanly be agencies specialized on this, such as private law enforcement. The only real problem is getting to a society with a libertarian culture.
2019-07-11 19:45
any private police force will be smaller than the largest private army so when that army comes to steal your shit and rape your daughters those guys will not come help you if you call them.
2019-07-11 19:46
this is necessary because the guy with the biggest army will never allow a private enforcement company to develop until it can challenge his authority, he will keep them small and use them for his own purposes.
2019-07-11 19:47
if someone comes with an army to enslave you, you cannot protect yourself by saying " i have an absolute right to my own body". you are now that persons property. simple as that.
2019-07-11 19:38
#428
 | 
Brazil adre221 
That's another discussion altogether, the discussion is whenether libertarianism is right or not, the discussion is not about making it impossible to violate the law of private property.
2019-07-11 19:42
no the discussion is whether libertarianism is remotely feasible and because of this simple example the answer is no.
2019-07-11 19:42
#434
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's feasible with a libertarian culture.
2019-07-11 19:45
no because someone with a different culture can just come and make you all slaves.
2019-07-11 19:47
#441
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Libertarians can prevent that if they are the majority.
2019-07-11 19:48
no because you dont have a state to structure an organized and trained national military. you will have a couple different warlords who are fighting each other all the time and cant defend an invasion.
2019-07-11 19:49
#445
 | 
Brazil adre221 
That's speculatory. You can't predict the future. Furthermore, this is a historicist fallacy which is easily refuted, given that in history there has been examples of huge national militaries defeated by a small private army.
2019-07-11 19:51
historically, the world was once libertarian, with nomadic groups of people traveling around and taking what they needed from the land. since that time, states have developed, because people organized are stronger and can beat any libertarian group of people. history has shown that states are superior to libertarianism or anarchy
2019-07-11 19:53
whereas a lot of socialist ideas like redistribution of wealth through taxation are feasible and implemented in practice and those policies violate your libertarian rights every day but you cant do anything about it because in libertarianism there is no one to protect your rights.
2019-07-11 19:44
#438
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Those ideas could only be implemented because there was cultural support behind them, just like the only reason the state exists right now is because there is a predominant statist culture. If there was a society with a majoritly libertarian culture, anarchocapitalism would be inevitable.
2019-07-11 19:47
any anarchic state will be taken over by force by an archic state.
2019-07-11 19:48
#443
 | 
Brazil adre221 
anarchic state is an oxymoron
2019-07-11 19:49
anarchic territory then. anarchic land. it will just be conquered.
2019-07-11 19:50
#449
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Which is why anarchocapitalism will never be reached by brute force, but by cultural means. Once a significant part of the world is libertarian, it'd be impossible to contain an anarchic society to form through means of repression, given that those means are only used to contain a small minority, what is used for the majority of people is propaganda. The state can't subjugate it's people using brute force, they rely mainly on propaganda.
2019-07-11 19:55
the state is better at using brute force than the libertarian people though. and as long as the state has propaganda and a military they can suppress your revolution indefinitely.
2019-07-11 19:56
#451
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Libertarianism will never be reached through means of revolution. It'll simply happenwhen there is so many libertarians that it'll be impossible to contain. It'll happen gradually through culture. The state doesn't use the military to contain an entire population, they only use it to repress the minority that is unaffected by propaganda. And let me remind you, the market is much more efficient at supplying demands than the state, the quality of a private army is way superior than the state's, you are talking about private agencies with paid professionals against 18 year old civillians drafted by the government and commanded by a bunch of bureaucrats.
2019-07-11 20:01
"From what you're saying, it's like ethics doesn't exist and everyone can do what they want as long as they have the power to." even if ethics exist anyone can still do what they want as long as they have the power to. ethics doesnt stop people from doing things. ethics just makes statements about people doing things.
2019-07-11 19:33
#421
 | 
Brazil adre221 
And that's what libertarianism is. It's a normative law, it tells you what's right and what you should do objectively, it's not a descriptive law that is impossible to violate, it's a law that if followed correctly avoids all conflict, but it's possible to violate it. Libertarianism will always be ethically correct.
2019-07-11 19:38
in other words its just a nice fantasy that wont protect you against exploitation by people with more power.
2019-07-11 19:40
#452
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Ethics come before power. Libertarian theory is not a military or cultural theory that'll teach you how to reach libertarianism, it's simply a guideline to know what's right and what's wrong, only after knowning those things you can begin to think about power and strategy.
2019-07-11 20:04
oh and with all the money i make from selling my water i hire a private army to kill any people dying of thirst who try to steal any of my water without paying for it.
2019-07-11 18:10
society doesnt need billionaires. billionaires need society.
2019-07-11 13:55
#125
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
And billionaires own a large portion of the market.
2019-07-11 13:53
they dont own demand, they own supply. demand creates jobs.
2019-07-11 13:53
+1
2019-07-11 18:26
#127
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
We should destroy taxes. Don't let the goverment tak our money.
2019-07-11 13:53
Go to somalia dipshit
2019-07-11 16:39
#213
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
I would prefer USA
2019-07-11 16:39
No you wouldnt, for healthcare reasons alone, you wouldnt. You pay MORE (in whats effectively a private tax to the insurance companies) for a worse result. Under a more scandinavian system you pay no private tax, but pay a bit more in the actual taxes but get better healthcare.
2019-07-11 16:42
#224
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
I was comparing USA to Somalia
2019-07-11 16:42
Still worse than actual 1st world countries.
2019-07-11 16:43
#229
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
Worse in some ways, but if you want to "really" succed in life (in terms of financial gain) USA is still the best country in the world.
2019-07-11 16:45
Totally depends. Its certainly not dependent on how much you work. There are people working 3 jobs so they can survive. Its more about the starting hand that youre dealt (at birth I mean obv).
2019-07-11 16:46
#237
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
I am not talking about the lower class in sociaty who in Denmark get paid by the goverment. I am talking about the people who want to become multi millionaires or even billionaires.
2019-07-11 16:48
Oh really? This is what happened when I googled "country best chance to get rich" and took the first 4 links or so. evonomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08.. evonomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_busi.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starting_a_Busines..
2019-07-11 16:54
in america even fewer people own an even larger share. so there are more ppl over 30M in some countries but the most billionaires in US google.com/search?q=amount+billionaires+.. there are also more poor ppl in the USA than in any of the other countries in that first image. both these things are a logical consequence of higher wealth inequality
2019-07-11 18:16
Thats a different statistic. Per million inhabitants they dont have the most, but in comparison to the rest of the world, they do. We would have to know whether people make their billions and then move to the US or not. But considering that the US has a shitton of inhabitants and yet even compared to the other 1st world countries has a bad percentage, I would still say that its not as easy in the US to make a lot of money than in the countries I listed.
2019-07-11 18:18
Yeah its what I wrote in #236
2019-07-11 18:22
to be fair though if you have a good idea or skills you can make a lot of money in silicon valley without having to have startup capital just with high wages or by attracting venture capital investments
2019-07-11 18:26
From my links in #248 it seems that thats easier in other countries. Just because silicon valley is a well-known name, doesnt mean that its the magical place of rainbows and sunshine for startups.
2019-07-11 19:20
not because of its name, but it is a magical place for startups
2019-07-11 19:31
Seemingly not magical enough to make up for the other countries. If it was that magical, everyone would just go there and make US #1 on that list.
2019-07-11 19:38
you dont necessarily become a billionaire yourself by starting a billion dollar startup, it depends on how you finance it.
2019-07-11 19:40
I dont know if this has any relevance to the original question
2019-07-11 19:40
sweden iceland and norway are still ahead in billionaires per 1000 people but they also have higher wealth than people in the USA on average. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_.. but jeff bezos owns like 7x as much as the richest billionaire in any european country
2019-07-11 18:18
+1
2019-07-11 18:26
#496
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Yes Somalia, a prime example of anarchocapitalistic society. 0 iq lefist.
2019-07-12 08:00
Who talked about anarchocapitalism? Somalia serves primarily as the superlative example for how a country might look when nothing functions. But it secondarily is an ok example because it has huge problems actually collecting the taxes and as such has effectively (not de jure, but de facto) a really low tax rate.
2019-07-12 12:31
#573
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The comment you replied to defended the end of taxes, which in consequence would result in the end of the state and the beginning of anarchocapitalism. In return you said for him to go to Somalia, as if that were an example of what were to happen if a society became anarchocapitalist, which is a complete false comparation since Somalia is very, very far from being one.
2019-07-12 12:34
Well, again, the people there and corporations pay very little tax, I am not saying much more.
2019-07-12 12:38
#578
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Which is completely irrelevant since the poor condition Somalia is in is caused by a myriad of factors, of which low taxes is not included.
2019-07-12 12:42
Well, I would certainly say that its not close to the top reasons. But again, its just supposed to be a pure example for a terrible infrastructure. Can you give me some countries where people and corporations pay very little taxes and yet can live in infrastructural conditions like the western world (not including the shithole called USA), so f.e. scandinavia?
2019-07-12 12:45
#582
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia. But examples are irrelevant, it's not what libertarian theory is based. We base our theories on ethics and on economical axioms, and the mere existence of the state results in ethic violations and the loss of capital. All countries would be richer without the state or taxes.
2019-07-12 12:49
Oh ethics, that totally useless and immoral thing that we were talking about? Fantastic base for a system, really. You think that the flint-michigan-water-crisis f.e. is not a prime example of how corporations do not give a fuck and how they should be regulated stronger, forced to be more thorough and heavily punished for shit like that? You think its once again the governments fault?
2019-07-12 12:53
#591
 | 
Brazil adre221 
As I said before, it's not useless and it could only be immoral in your leftist sense of morality. If avoiding all conflict by preventing the violation of property of innocents is immoral for you, that doesn't matter to me. Who was responsible for the crisis? Wasn't the government who was handling the water? If ethics were to be properly followed all responsible would be charged with murder and the company would be forced to go bankrupt, of course that doesn't happen because what is followed is not ethics, but the state legislation, which always let the companies off the hook easily, since in most cases they own a good chunk of the company and they bring in a lot of tax revenue.
2019-07-12 13:03
"Avoiding all conflict", yeah and instead you have f.e. a homelessness problem like in the US? Who was responsible? The company was responsible for controlling that those valves (or pipes or whatever) are properly installed and in good condition, they for monetary reasons didnt control there as often as they should have and this was the result. THATS what happens with unregulated capitalism. And center-lefties like me are saying that these companies ofc should NOT easily be let of the hook.
2019-07-12 13:09
#596
 | 
Brazil adre221 
What's the link between correct follow of ethics and homelessness? What company was it? As far as I know the state was responsible for the water. And this is not ''unregulated capitalism'', this is simply a crime that'd be strongly punished in a libertarian society, but is brushed off by the state, since it's in their best interest that these companies are not properly punished. Saying something like this is ''unregulated capitalism'' is the same as saying that robbing other people is capitalism. It's completely idiotic, this is the exact opposite of following ethics and capitalism, this is statism in it's finest.
2019-07-12 13:14
Well lets say due to the lack of taxes there is no money for any welfare net for people who become homeless either due to being bad entrepeneurs or because of instances that isnt really their fault (whatever situations might be the reason for homeless individuals) and these people are just left to fight on their own. Thats an example. Bruh, in my system the company would also be strongly punished but in your system the regulations that the violated wouldnt exist IN THE FIRST PLACE so how can you say they would be punished?
2019-07-12 13:20
#603
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Violation of private property, also known as crimes results in the loss of capital, which in turn causes poverty. You are saying that the government should steal from people to combat homelessness (which is caused by poverty), so you are defending criminal action as a solution for something that was caused by criminal action. In other words, your solution is exactly the cause of the problem, it makes absolutely no sense. And also, it's possible to help people in need without commiting crimes, you can't commit crimes ''for a good cause'', it's unjustified. In an anarchocapitalist society which follows ethics, there'd be private regulations simply because of the risk that certain actions represent. Violating property of innocents is a crime, and so is the threat of doing so.
2019-07-12 13:26
Rich people should pay more taxes
2019-07-11 13:56
no
2019-07-11 14:09
Yes, what else would they do with all their money? They're rich af, their money would be better utilized for science, research, medication and development of the country
2019-07-11 14:22
#141
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Stealing from someone because you think you can use their resources better than them >Every thief in the world
2019-07-11 14:24
What me? You = all poor poeple
2019-07-11 14:27
#144
 | 
Brazil adre221 
What are you trying to say? Speak proper english please.
2019-07-11 14:28
Nt jungle
2019-07-11 14:59
#152
 | 
Brazil adre221 
0 iq leftist
2019-07-11 15:00
Your first argument is totally invalid, the reason rich have money is also thanks to their country allowing it, you are probably 15 yo or smth
2019-07-11 15:36
#161
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The only rich people that doesn't deserve their money are the ones who got it by partnering with the state to hinder competition through regulations and taxes. The people who got their money fairly through voluntary transactions have every right to their money. What do you mean ''thanks to their country allowing it'', now you need permission to make money? By eliminating the state (which are nothing but parasites) you automatically eliminate all corporativists. You call me 15 yo yet you're the one spouting lefist punk ideology.
2019-07-11 15:42
Ok so you literally think who works the hardest has the most money?
2019-07-11 16:03
#167
 | 
Brazil adre221 
No, I could spend an entire month digging a hole with a spoon and I'd make nothing. The ones who makes the most profitable voluntary transactions with the most people has the most money, Amazon for example makes deals with billions of people, that's why they are so rich. It may take a while for your brain that's damaged with socialist marxist ideology to grasp that but it's really easy to understand.
2019-07-11 16:09
Some people don't have natural talent for running business, yet they work twice as hard and gain twice as little, it's sad it today's world how capitalism works, even though it can be much better. if the rich are mad it's their own fault, I'm not marxistic, I like economical features of capitalism and free market but it's socially EVIL!
2019-07-11 16:16
#182
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Those people are not earning money because their work is not very productive. There is nothing ''socially evil'' about voluntary trades, there is evil however in violating the property of innocent people, which is what the state specializes in. There is no capitalist society in today's world, a society can't be capitalist if there is a state.
2019-07-11 16:23
Read ''the ruined shopkeeper'' the only reason capitalism works is on frauds
2019-07-11 16:38
#214
 | 
Brazil adre221 
If there is fraud involved by definition it's not capitalism. Capitalism = voluntary trades. Are you saying it's impossible to accumulate capital without fraud?
2019-07-11 16:39
There are people who are dishonest and successful and then there are poeple who are honest and unsuccessful
2019-07-11 16:51
#245
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Capitalism can't be dishonest by definition, given that it's defined as voluntary trades. I already explained this once.
2019-07-11 16:52
Capitalism can't be dishonest xDD Please tell me how old are you perhaps your ideologies are coming from your parents
2019-07-11 16:55
#411
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Listen dude, I don't have patience with children. If you can't understand what I'm saying with your 50 iq brain, then don't bother.
2019-07-11 19:22
Just answer my question, yes I'm a bit of leftist but you are way further from the centre than me
2019-07-11 21:16
#490
 | 
Brazil adre221 
If I'm defining capitalism as voluntary trades, unless voluntary trades are dishonest, capitalism BY DEFINITION can't be dishonest. If you define capitalism as something else then it could be ''dishonest''. And yes, ofc I'm very far from centre, that doesn't mean anything. As a libertarian I'd be considered extreme right-wing.
2019-07-12 07:45
In capitalism, the market lack authorization, there are many scammers (dishonest) and as long as it's not extreme law breaking nobody gives a fuck. Yes you can sell whatever you want but for someone who cares about equality this is a sign of a hole within the system
2019-07-12 11:02
#553
 | 
Brazil adre221 
If they are scamming they aren't taking part in capitalist practices, they are performing a crime. In order for it to be capitalism private property can't be violated. The last part of your comment reveals your problem and the left's problem in general, they don't care about facts, ethics or logic, they ignore all evidence and claims everyone is equal, and try to force this equality through government intervention.
2019-07-12 12:07
Their money isnt being put to use AT ALL, its just SITTING there. Its not subjective if that money can be used. Its OBVIOUS.
2019-07-11 16:39
#219
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Even if this is true, it doesn't matter, you can't justify violating an innocent's property.
2019-07-11 16:40
Oh yes I can, easiest example is the US.
2019-07-11 16:41
So in capitalistic state, paying for mandatory insurance also counts as stealing? High taxes from the rich are called solidarity taxes
2019-07-11 21:21
#488
 | 
Brazil adre221 
No state is capitalistic. All forms of state is socialism in different amounts. And yes, if you aren't paying voluntarily, you are being robbed by the state.
2019-07-12 07:41
So it's a robbery either way
2019-07-12 10:56
#551
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Taxes? Yes it is.
2019-07-12 12:03
Good morning, so solidary taxes are also a robbery as well as voluntary taxes
2019-07-12 12:06
#554
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Good morning. Yes both of them are. In order for it to not be a robbery it would have to be a donation.
2019-07-12 12:08
Okay I see, I didn't know you are against the tax ENTIRELY. But if you assume this, how else do you expect a country to survive?
2019-07-12 12:11
#557
 | 
Brazil adre221 
The only thing that won't survive is the state, the country will do just fine. The state doesn't produce anything, they only take, they are a parasite sucking off the market. If the state stop taking the population's money, it'll only have a positive effect on the country.
2019-07-12 12:13
What's the difference between the state and the country
2019-07-12 12:14
#562
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Depends on what definiton you use. I used ''country'' in the sense of the area the state controls, but not the state itself.
2019-07-12 12:17
Well country can't survive without a state
2019-07-12 12:25
#576
 | 
Brazil adre221 
How so?
2019-07-12 12:38
Look whatever man your ideas are very extreme
2019-07-12 12:47
#583
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Very extreme and very correct.
2019-07-12 12:49
why?????
2019-07-11 18:26
+ rich ppl dont pay anything for income tax. Ppl who want to get rich pay more
2019-07-11 18:28
That doesn't make any sense, it still means that rich people pay taxes, does that mean if I'm rich but I don't want to be I don't pay taxes?
2019-07-11 21:14
YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INCOME TAX IDIOT?
2019-07-11 22:15
Name checks out
2019-07-11 22:22
Sorry, i have bad temper to talk with comunists/ other reds that dont even know what they are talking about.
2019-07-11 22:29
I'm not a communist, can you please elaborate your thought I didn't understand
2019-07-11 22:35
any other kinda red
2019-07-11 22:38
No I mean the first one
2019-07-11 22:46
yyyyyyyyyy yes i dont verschteyen chech
2019-07-11 22:48
taxation is theft. especially when you tax the super rich a ton. theyre the ones who provide jobs through business. if u hurt them u hurt the economy.
2019-07-11 14:51
They do that to an extent and then let the other billions sit in some tax haven. You are talking nonsense.
2019-07-11 16:40
shut up communist shill
2019-07-12 00:18
awww did I trigger your trickle-down-syndrome?
2019-07-12 01:39
ahahhahah stay poor. too poor to even show what country ur from LUL
2019-07-12 03:59
Oh believe me I am doing perfectly fine monetarily. Probably have more than you. And I used to show my flag but people would use it to make cheap insults instead of staying on topic so I decided to try out hiding it and it has drastically lowered the amount of times people divert from the topic at hand so for me its a great choice and it will stay that way, unless ofc some dipshit like you comes along who is out of arguments and now needs to find something else to bash.
2019-07-12 04:02
HAHAHAHHAHAH NO WYA U HAVE MORE THAN ME. COMMUNIST RETARD
2019-07-12 20:14
pretty likely m8
2019-07-12 20:46
HAHAHHAHAHHAH IMPOSSIBLE FROM A COMMIE
2019-07-12 22:53
Not a commie and dont live in a commie country
2019-07-12 22:54
IM SURE M8 LUL
2019-07-12 23:02
thats great
2019-07-12 23:03
+1
2019-07-11 18:28
but roads!
2019-07-11 16:22
but tones of other taxes like VAT???
2019-07-11 18:28
sorry forgot Kappa
2019-07-11 18:29
Probably not even half of this website even pays income tax lul
2019-07-11 16:22
Did you know re-inventing our current economy system with better one would grant globally so much money that we should not think about working 40 hours / week in western countries anymore.
2019-07-11 16:35
#216
 | 
Finland Jodecast 
Most retarded thing I heard all day
2019-07-11 16:39
#234
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
taxes in general are theft.
2019-07-11 16:46
#525
rain | 
Norway Trombass 
Well.. Not theft, as you have many benefits in the later days. But ye, I feel like I am getting robbed every month :(
2019-07-12 09:10
#669
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
Well, yes theft because the government is taking your money against your will. What you get in return is irrelevant if it is an involuntary transaction.
2019-07-12 20:30
#242
EliGE | 
Netherlands gelm1r 
another loser posting about taxes hltv is full of trash no surprise
2019-07-11 16:51
Agreed let's impose a wealth / capital tax then
2019-07-11 17:26
properties tax is good one
2019-07-11 18:30
Property tax is awful
2019-07-11 18:54
why, police must take more care of ppl who have bigger properties so they should pay for police but income tax i robbery
2019-07-11 18:57
I am coming at it from a more rural lower income bracket perspective. I do agree cities should charge reasonable property taxes. There are literally no police in my town, the sheriff had to step down due to changes in regulations etc. by the state I believe (can't remember exactly) but it's been several years.
2019-07-11 19:00
I'm talking about 2nd and 3rd world countries like poland, in USA is freedom so you can have a shotgun in your locker and buy your own bodyguards
2019-07-11 19:03
I like paying my much-needed taxes lol
2019-07-11 17:30
ok then, if you want you can but there are ppl who dont want so let them be free :D
2019-07-11 18:29
Then society as we know it would collapse and everything would become privatized which is just cancer
2019-07-11 20:53
Do you know where is best healthcare on earth? Singapore. You know what kida healthcare is in Singapore? Privat Nothing will collapse after privatization (in spite of shit companies)
2019-07-11 21:02
Actually Hong kong ranks higher and in terms of globally the UK ranks higher than Singapore. I hate privatization and pure capitalism in general. Privatization in my eyes is sucking money from people who are dying. But let's agree to disagree because I don't want to discuss this any further.
2019-07-11 21:38
ok i agree to disagree (but ppl are not dying in Singapore)
2019-07-11 22:16
Do you understand english?
2019-07-11 22:42
yesn't
2019-07-11 22:42
you know it is expensive as fuck. In Finland we have great healthcare almost purely by taxes
2019-07-11 22:41
#494
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Translation: ''In finland we are forced to pay for expensive healthcare through taxes and have to use the state's services because any type of competition is crushed by taxes and regulations''
2019-07-12 07:52
there are private healthcare as well and they are definitely not crushed. just saying it is better this way
2019-07-12 11:49
#556
 | 
Brazil adre221 
It's not. Private healthcare can't offer competitive prices because they are not funded by tax payer money, and they are strangled by government regulation and taxes. So the government does exert a monopoly in this area, which makes the services WAY more expensive.
2019-07-12 12:11
You have no idea about Northern European Hhealthcare so why do you talk :D. I have used private healthcare many times because it is faster, and actually not that expensive
2019-07-12 14:09
#622
 | 
Brazil adre221 
They why are you complaining about healthcare being expensive and defending taxes if you know private is better?
2019-07-12 14:11
#344
 | 
United Kingdom UKCS_BESTCS 
The UK can barely afford most basic services like the police as it is, you think getting rid of most tax will help?
2019-07-11 18:32
#409
 | 
Brazil adre221 
yes
2019-07-11 19:20
#457
 | 
United Kingdom UKCS_BESTCS 
How?
2019-07-11 21:03
#482
 | 
United Kingdom UKCS_BESTCS 
#457
2019-07-12 01:03
#489
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Those basic services are market demands, the state monopolizes the right to provide these services, that's why they are badly done and expensive. If you eliminate the state's funding, there will no longer be regulations and other forms of repression that stops people from providing these services.
2019-07-12 07:43
90% of people on this site won’t pay taxes anyway
2019-07-11 18:38
100% europeans that bought 1 thing in 1 shop payed taxes
2019-07-11 18:47
Don’t know if your mum buying you some deodorant counts as paying taxes
2019-07-12 10:16
DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS VAT OR YOU ARE BRAINDEAD?!!?!?!!?
2019-07-12 10:17
Of course I do xD
2019-07-12 11:10
guess this was answer to the second part of my sentence. btw it should be ofc i am not do :D
2019-07-12 11:15
true 90% of people on this site are under age and don't buy anything.
2019-07-11 18:53
I guess you are 14 years old if you think that.
2019-07-11 22:40
#486
 | 
Finland Smoonah 
you should know everything about taxes, red coats even had hat tax aka hat duty
2019-07-12 04:05
#388
 | 
Other distantcs 
You guys should come to Monaco you're missing out ;P
2019-07-11 19:01
INCOMES TAXES In poland are nothing when u look at Belgium & Grece . Dont cry we do
2019-07-11 19:01
get better < in other counties is worse then in yours so do nothing
2019-07-11 23:18
TRy my best for a better country but trust me; Belgium politics = mafia
2019-07-13 19:27
(((ancaps))) (((libertarians)))
2019-07-11 19:46
#453
 | 
Brazil adre221 
What's the parenthesis for?
2019-07-11 20:07
#491
 | 
United Kingdom DreadN0ught 
Antisemitism
2019-07-12 07:46
#492
 | 
Brazil adre221 
what?
2019-07-12 07:47
3 brackets either side of any word means Jews
2019-07-12 12:21
Typical ingrate. Country is literally funded through not only polands taxes but other european countries as well and when little stupid kiddo has to tax himself its theft :)) By this logic poland is a country of thieves. gz
2019-07-11 22:43
#493
 | 
Brazil adre221 
leftist_cuck_8cm Not enjoying being stolen from is being ingraceful?
2019-07-12 07:49
Not when your quality of life is due from taxes, monkeybrain.
2019-07-12 11:04
#559
 | 
Brazil adre221 
My quality of life is due to accumulation of capital, taxes effectively steal this capital in order to go to politicians' pockets.
2019-07-12 12:15
Maybe in the shithole that is brazil sure
2019-07-12 12:57
#597
 | 
Brazil adre221 
I know it's hard for you to understand since you are severely crippled by brain damage (leftism) but this can be applied to any form of state.
2019-07-12 13:16
nt favelaboi
2019-07-12 13:17
#487
 | 
United States n3h 
How you gonna pay for your "free" healthcare without taxes.
2019-07-12 04:05
500 low iq comments
2019-07-12 07:56
Move to Dubai and live happy, only until you have job and income =))) And pay 200+USD just for visiting doctor =))
2019-07-12 12:15
+1
2019-07-12 12:58
#563
Blue | 
Belgium Thotiana 
nt kid
2019-07-12 12:17
#584
 | 
Canada NELK 
Country without tax = 5th world
2019-07-12 12:52
Just need to reduce tax and everyone is happy Removing tax = stone age
2019-07-12 12:54
Well goverment needs to earn money somehow...If your goverment canceled taxes things like roads and so on would not exist... :)
2019-07-12 12:57
well also weapon manifacturered would not exist and the weapon lobby would not support every god damn fkin war in the middle east on boith sides :d mayb its good to just pay 50% taxes cuz the rest is used for shady things anyway. but even if u just pay 50% taxes they will more likely use it for the shady business than for the people.
2019-07-12 13:10
#613
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
The goverments don't need income tax to work. USA gets 15% of their income from income tax (2009)
2019-07-12 13:54
Tax in Czech is also 3-15% (depends how big your wage is) and we have everything but 15% is still good number when you have for example 120 000 000 people who work. :) And USA doesn’t have free healthcare system, free education and so on... so USA is bad example.
2019-07-12 14:14
#646
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
Their tax is used on other things, the army is a big one.
2019-07-12 14:50
#677
 | 
Germany xsyzzz123 
??? what you're saying is wrong they (federal government only) get 80+% on income taxes
2019-07-12 23:22
#678
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.. This shows that i am wrong it is only 12% of gdp that is income tax sorry.
2019-07-12 23:34
#618
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Ridiculous statement. There is a demand for roads, of course they would exist, you are talking like any sector that the government monopolizes only exists because of them.
2019-07-12 14:05
System in EU works bit different :) Don’t compare Brazilian system with European system. We can see how bad the Brazilian system is...
2019-07-12 14:15
#644
 | 
Brazil adre221 
What I said can be applied for every state, regardless if the area they occupy is doing well or not.
2019-07-12 14:38
can be applied but isnt applaied here... thats the point.
2019-07-12 14:57
#649
 | 
Brazil adre221 
In what sort of reality roads wouldn't exist if the government didn't steal from people?
2019-07-12 15:07
Idk how is it working in Brazil but in Czech roads are built by goverment.
2019-07-12 15:08
#654
 | 
Brazil adre221 
Because they monopolize this service through legislation, taxes and regulation. It'd be the same thing as me stealing from everyone to buy water, prohibit everyone else from selling water, or at least regulating and taxating enough so that they are not competitive, and then claiming that my theft is necessary otherwise everyone would die of thirst.
2019-07-12 15:12
And Idk how is it working in Brazil but in Czech government doesnt steal money from people.
2019-07-12 15:09
#655
 | 
Brazil adre221 
That'd only be true if the Czech government didn't operate on taxes.
2019-07-12 15:13
Well and what we got for our taxes? -Free healthcare system -When you buy glasses government will give you up to 50% of price -Pension -Free Education (private schools,highschools,universities are ofc paid) -Free traveling for students And there are more things we got for it...I think its absoluetly OK :)
2019-07-12 15:18
#661
 | 
Brazil adre221 
If the government were funded purely by people who payed for it voluntarily it wouldn't be a problem, but you do understand how it's unjustified that they steal from people?
2019-07-12 15:59
That moment people have strong opinions on taxes without ever paying taxes
2019-07-12 13:50
#611
 | 
Denmark dlinko 
What moment, you have 0% in income tax in USA and not over than 15% in any state.
2019-07-12 13:53
Perhaps you misread, I'm referencing younger people who don't have any income but talk about income taxes like It effects them lol
2019-07-12 13:55
#626
gob b | 
Germany Koxky 
What about all the positive things the state gives you though? Healthcare, social security, emergency services, all of that wouldn't be possible without the taxpayers.
2019-07-12 14:14
well thats part of the tax money but what about the money that goes into the army, into the weapon lobby into dirty business?
2019-07-12 14:28
#631
gob b | 
Germany Koxky 
The way the state handles tax money can be influenced by the voters. Thats basically how the american revolution started. No taxation without representation.
2019-07-12 14:24
we don't live in this times anymore, why u think 1 fkin family owns 99% of all world central banks?
2019-07-12 14:29
#637
gob b | 
Germany Koxky 
The Rothschildts? Thats a modern myth, not even closely resembling the truth.
2019-07-12 14:29
its a myth? check ur fkin euro bills and see the copy right symbol on it :D ur just to blind to see ^^ i was same like u when i was young didn'T believe it but the more i study into it the more i know its real.
2019-07-12 14:31
Cool... you joined the conspiracy team... the team of crazy nonsense ppl.
2019-07-12 15:23
is that really like that? political investor jeffrey epstein being a pedophile billionaire was also a conspiracy at first guess who was arrested 2 weeks ago. conspiracy theory is just a made up thing for the weak minded people to avoid reality. ofc some is bullshit but there is so much truth in conspiracies. if u still believe 9'/11 happened the way they tell u, don't even bother ^^
2019-07-12 17:12
as i said you turned retarded
2019-07-12 18:04
or mayb u should just open ur eyes and not be blinded by consume and entertainment. ur probably young and don't question anything. dont worry i was same this will change sooner or later.
2019-07-13 02:26
Oh i do and im far from blinded but you seem to be totally blinded by all this conspiracy theory going on....
2019-07-13 17:33
#651
 | 
Brazil adre221 
That doesn't justify theft. If I stole from you and gave you something in return that wouldn't justify the previous action.
2019-07-12 15:09
#632
 | 
Poland Wajcheusz 
Name checks out xD
2019-07-12 14:25
#633
 | 
Poland Wajcheusz 
+1 btw
2019-07-12 14:25
why can't we used taxes like only when we need something? like for now we don't need jackshit. but yet we put money into creating stupid fkin weapons for a war we can probably never win anyway.
2019-07-12 14:38
#666
 | 
Sweden Zlatanist 
Tax means dachshund in swedish
2019-07-12 18:37
#673
 | 
United States n3h 
But if you didnt pay taxes you would be crying about why healthcare is so expensive. Why do I have to pay for public school? Why the roads are torn to shit, why it takes 4 hours to update license at dmv, mail 1 day a week, garbage building up on your streets. Your country would essentially have no defense, so another country could come in and do whatever the fuck they want with you.
2019-07-12 22:59
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.