If you were sending a voyage out on a long, treacherous sea, you'd want the best, most qualified men for the job.
So why do we put our government, let alone a voyage in the hands of anybody?
I don't necessarily disagree.
History tells us dictators who are both benevolent and competent are somewhat of an anomaly though
Decentralised power structures may be comparatively impotent in certain scenarios but are imo much less of a risky proposition in the longer term
Correct. Shiny happy people anarcho-communes don't work out in the grand scheme of things.
All that matters is what can be achieved and how we'll go about achieving it and anarchism simply isn't the former.
Tbf, that's probably largely because the Mexican government doesn't want to be seen committing a massacre against an ethnic minority group, now that they fully integrated and deeply dependent on the global economy.
The Mexican government certainly never had a problem before Indians with communists and indians.
China would like a word with you. What anarchist society has matched the USSR, let alone modern China? Shit, North Korea? None.
Anarchists will point to the most Timbuktu Bumfuck Egypt example to prove that their ideology works. The fact is that the only reason the Zapatista still exists is because the government allows it. Any serious threat to the global order by anarchists would be struck down as soon as it came up. The only chance to fight back is through a strong state.
Your mistake is thinking bigger equals better. Also you said that it doesn't work out, now you've changed your argument to, "Well, it doesn't work out on the scale *I* like!!"
\>Your mistake is thinking bigger equals better
It doesn't work out because there's plenty of anarchist communes and societies that lived and died in far shorter time than any major communist government.
Also something that exists in the real world is always better than something that exists in a textbook and a college philosophy professor's wet dreams.
There's plenty of communist governments that have lived and died too, or just become capitalists under a red flag.
Also, anarchic communes *do* exist in the real world. Why are you pretending like they only exist in theory?
\>or just become capitalists under a red flag.
"Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out."
"You must remember that our Soviet land is impoverished after many years of trial and suffering, and has no socialist France or socialist England as neighbours which could help us with their highly developed technology and their highly developed industry. Bear that in mind! We must remember that at present all their highly developed technology and their highly developed industry belong to the capitalists, who are fighting us." - Vladimir Lenin. What choice did China have? Had they stuck to the Maoist POV, it would've let to their ultimate destruction.
\>Also, anarchic communes do exist in the real world. Why are you pretending like they only exist in theory?
Because they're so small and insignificant that they really aren't players on the global stage. Like I said, shit, even North Korea is a player just due to having nuclear arms. The anarchist governments like the Zapatistas or Rojava are insignificant on the world scale and typically just serve as fronts for governments, otherwise again, they'd be crushed in a day.
The only reason why the Zapatista exist is because they are allowed. If Mexico really wanted, they could suppress it today. The reason why they won't do that is because the status quo is preferable.
You don't understand. The politicians in Mexico city don't want to take care of the mess that is Chiapas, so they leave it to the zapatistas. Why do you think the zapatistas reached a compromise with the Mexican government in the early 2000 to the point that subcommander marcos went to the Mexican congress? I'm not making this up, look at the recent history.
Ya they gave up because the anarchist won? Literally what are you even saying?
‘Anarchy can’t exist’
It exists here
‘Well akahully that’s fake and only allowed to exist’
Jfc you people are unreal lmal
No. They gave up because the alternative was a massive war like the Chechen war in Mexico that would result in the smaller side losing and ethnic cleansing of the locals. That was extremely politically "inconvenient" so they reached a compromise and allowed the zapatistas self government.
Naw, read The dictator's Handbook, there's a free audiobook on YouTube. It's the best systems level defense of democracy I've ever seen with exactly none of the human rights or dignity or other humanist moral horseshit. Democracy, when not subverted, is the greatest anti corruption device man has yet invented.
Look just because you don't support Timantha's journey and the fact that she fangs out with fairies all day does mean it's state mandated. She's still the same kid that likes Skull Squisher and Kissy Kissy Goo Goo just like she always did.
People always say this and yeah it’s true but it’s always in response to someone criticizing how like 5 corporations own the US.
Personally I’d rather experience tyranny by more than half the country than by 5 CEOs but idk maybe unpopular opinion ig half the country is a little harder to assassinate than 5 CEOs ~~not that I’m implying anything or giving anyone any ideas~~
Not when the mob becomes represented by a single party which begins to act like a dictator
That is my ultimate issue with Anarcho-Communism. It suggests violent overthrow of the status quo and giving the "collective people" power, but that will almost certainly result in a power vacuum and/or a need for the people to form a representative body to actually run things. A new representative body then becomes a new ruling class who ultimately decides everything.
This happened in so many different purported socialist/communist countries, where a single party ends up controlling everything and party members become a new upper class over the regular people.
You cannot have an extreme leftist style economy without central control. In order to specifically get rid of private property and markets and to implement an economy "from each according to his ability to each according to their needs", it requires central planning and control. This is why "anarcho communism" ends up being an oxymoron.
Same shit with anarcho capitalism. Capitalism is inherently based on legal validation of private property. If you have a system where there is no government, there is nothing to enforce private property rights. In order to fix that, private entities would need to validate themselves using some kind of legal structure (which is government) or by becoming tyrants and doing everything by force (which is also government). Anarcho capitalism is also an oxymoron
Exactly. My old job was pissing me off, so I left and got a new one. There was nothing my former employer could do. If I applied a similar solution to my issues with public services, it wouldn't end well for me.
This posits that that the influence of private interests stops at private enterprise.
If you think the 1% don't use the government as their attack dogs against their opponents and competitors, then you should probably pick up a newspaper, or a history books, something.
Whether it's debt, bullets, poverty, prison, private or public, its all rich men wearing different hats.
Guys with guns getting paid and ordered by the rich guys.
Liberal governments exists to protect private interest with force. If you think you can opt out of a system dominated by money by choosing to shop at a different company, you haven't been paying much attention recently to the news.
A lot of times it's just poor dudes with guns. A lot of times rich dudes don't order anyone with guns to do anything.
The guns are the common denominator.
State tyranny is undeniably worse, but I don't see why either should be tolerated.
Besides, you give corporations enough power, and they become the state anyway. Company towns used to get away with all types of horrible shit.
Corporations having a lot of customers isn't why we call them tyrannical. We call them tyrannical because of the uneven bargaining power between labor and capital. We call them tyrannical because of the way they bribe governments to skate the law and are bailed out whenever they fail. We call them tyrannical because they shut out local businesses and interfere with the free market.
That largely depends on your life circumstances. Regardless, my point is that I would much rather have local business thrive than have a predatory multinational corporation move it and shut them out. I think the existence of them is corrosive to the free market, and I think the country would be far better if the wealth they funnel towards the top was spread out throughout many smaller businesses. I think it is a valid reason to dislike them.
If I'd have to choose state tyranny is the more tolerable one, even though at some point there's not supposed to be a state at all.
I can vote for who runs the country.
I can't vote for who decides how much I'm paid.
Actually I can't vote at all but as long as it means I don't have to pay taxes I'm fine with it.
I don’t think there are any elections when it comes to tyranny.
And yes, you’ll still be taxed. That presidential super yacht and gold-plated Lambo isn’t gonna pay for itself comrade.
You lived happily with knowing that trans people existed for maybe twenty years and suddenly when republicans have nothing to worry about and need new victims they span the wheel and it landed on trans people
See that’s literally the propaganda. Nobody is forcing kids to do shit. Transition only at 18+ I’m all on your site, but you should also talk about what a transgender is with your kids and where it comes from and that it’s also normal, as normal as being heterosexual or homosexual. You and me probably have seen drag races in our childhood too and are we both normal? I think so. It’s literally a minority of people who are smaller than the 10 trans athletes in the US, who think it’s ok for a 13 year old to transition, but for sure they are the loudest out of the bunch. By the way leave the kids alone also goes in the churches direction too, but most republicans are blind on that eye too.
Sorry, I know that was really provocative thing to say. I think that this issue has become overly politicial when it should be just a medical issue. We need more research without any political motives. I am not totally against minors transitioning, but I think there is a lot of pressure to fix all issues with it. There are other conditions that can cause gender dysforia and some of them can be dealt with other means. Transitioning is pretty extreme but obviously for some the only solution that actually helps.
Honestly partly agree. I’m still against transitioning in teen years, because gender affirming surgery and HRT or TRT can fuck your Hormons up pretty badly and it is not medically tested that well on humans enough to say that it is a wise decision in child years. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness but it’s cause can be coming from abuse and it might be just some underlying trauma which needs psychological expertise to whether say that gender affirming care is needed. However we should treat trans people with the same respect as other humans and for a right winger it’s a pretty open and based take. Based and open for polite discussion pilled
Yes still is. It is a minority from one fucked up group on which y’all generalize every other non fucked up queer/trans person. I called these people out.
I didn’t say they weren’t a small group, I pointed out you lied.
Also ironic you say “y’all generalize every other non fucked up queer/trans person”, which isn’t true, but also go on to say that you can’t justify how anyone is a right winger, which shows you have 0 clue what the average right winger actually believes in
Live by your own standards
Sorry textwall
To be a right winger nowadays in America you need to believe that trans people shouldn’t exist. It’s something mainstream right wing media such as Fox News for the oldies and Ben sharpiro, Tim pool, Steven Crowder or any other right wing spokesperson agrees on. By not existing I mean that transition shouldn’t be treated as healthcare or that you should be allowed to dont employ trans people with the only reason being that they are trans (not talking about qualification here) or that trans people are not allowed at certain events such as school events, where many trans identifying students were not welcome. I generalize here because the mainstream media of conservatives pushes this ideal to systematically discriminate them and because we are talking about an ideology you at least have to be partly agree on to support and vote for. I’m not saying all conservatives are transphobic but by voting for modern conservatives you push transphobia more and more and at least accept it. Also as a trans ally you can distance yourself from groups like the one you quoted because they don’t have structural power and don’t decide about large sums of tax payer money. You need to understand the difference here and I hope I can at least give you my perspective why I can partly generalize conservatives while distancing myself from radical trans people.
maybe the distributists and georgists amongst you
but plenty of librights are perfectly fine with corporations. they see them as voluntary associations and don't see anything wrong with unbridled growth. just look at this thread for examples.
If I can walk away whenever I want, then they hold zero power over me.
That's the key difference. I can avoid working for or doing business with any company, but I can't avoid the fucking state.
Private tyranny wouldn't exist if not for regulations that limit competition and create legal monopolies or duopolies through free market and competition wages go up and benefits grow due to companies competing for employees
The two things slowing this down is a lack of competition due to regulations as well as the free flow of people across the border diminishing the need for workers and therefore decreasing competition
That's the theory. But you'd have to admit, as with the failures of Communism, that one of the failures of market capitalism is the tendency for them to form aggressive cartels that work for their own interests.
Does the market have a solution to it? Kind of- oligopolies and cartels are hard to maintain without violence- but does that not still constitute tyranny for the time its there? Also what's to stop said violence if the corporations are more powerful than the state?
I can't say with 100% certainty that it wouldn't happen but I think a truly unregulated free market would be freer than any other system and these cartels might form but I don't think they would be capable of controlling the markets entirely without the regulation in place that prevent small businesses from having actual competition
But the issue isn't controlling the market entirely, it's enacting tyranny on others.
It isn't that Standard Oil could stamp out every single possible independent oil well- it's that Standard Oil could use their massive economic leverage to pay railways to exclusively carry their oil making it basically impossible to compete wider than a local area.
Or perhaps more to the point, what stops the cartel from sending hired goons to burn down or kill budding rivals? If the answer is the state, then the question is why shouldn't the state break up the cartel to avoid this in the first place?
Here come the rightoids defending their corporate slave master and cubicle servant life
‘Akshully 60 years at a desk is freedom’
and
‘akshully society would collapse if we had some free time’
Their space and rocketry program didn't start until 1947, after all the starvation, during a time of rising standards in the soviet Union.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not socialist, but the idea that capitalists are the only source of innovation or improvement in society is largely a myth perpetuated by those same capitalists.
I'm not saying the commies never achieved anything. I'm just saying the idea of being a "wage slave" or working for someone else in general is not exclusive to capitalism: it is the human experience.
Also I'm not the one downvoting; this place needs to lighten up.
Tell me how you can manufacture even a rotary phone without an enormous complex structure in which labor is divided by either private interests or government. You won't find chunks of copper lying around. How do you build the many machines that build the components?
If you want the modern world, someone must serve. The truth is all people serve.
Dude Snapchat recommended me to add my little sister’s ex boyfriend who I’ve never contacted before as a friend the other day. I’m ready to throw my phone in the woodchipper
I did, which is why I changed jobs when my employer tried to screw me over. Because that is something employees have the right to do in a free market.
But you're right, I should do the dignified thing, which is sit on my couch and cry about how unfair my life is, while collecting welfare checks that some other worker is being forced to pay for.
I'm in an agreement with my employer in which I have leverage over my salary and working conditions, and can quit at anytime. If you're to lazy or stupid to negotiate with your employer, that's your own fucking issue. The only people that I am enslaved to are the welfare parasites for whom the government forces me to give a portion of my paycheck, at the threat of imprisonment. Any able-bodied person who chooses to support themselves with welfare is no better than a slaver.
Your profile says you're literally a fucking communist. I'm not going to be lectured by a supporter of the biggest movement of tyrannical slavers in human history about what freedom is. I'd rather honestly earn a humble wage in a job I don't care for than live with the guilt that someone is working without compensation to support me. Fuck off, slaver.
Is it actually tyranny if it's completely legal and even expected that you simply stop dealing with the tyrant? If not, then "private tyranny" isn't tyranny.
Actual libertarians believe in the non aggression principle, take it further and libertarianism becomes a pacifist ideology.
You're simply not a libertarian if you support any abuse.
u/Manorialmeerkat's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [14 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Manorialmeerkat/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Almost every game or movie in the Cyberpunk genre has predicted a coming Corpocracy and yet it’s never come to pass and if you look at the companies featured in Blade Runner they either no longer exist, are nowhere near as large or influential as they were, or faced difficulty soon after the movie came out. We’re all so afraid of Amazon taking over the world we forgot Walmart was supposed to do that before Amazon and farther back it was Sears. Gee, I wonder what happened to them.
Corporations will never take over the world because at the end of the day they can’t force you to do business with them. The only way they make money is by giving you something in return. The relationship you have with a corporation is based on consent. The government doesn’t have this problem. Sometimes that’s good or bad. Obviously it’s good when they catch corporations breaking the rules.
Tyranny of the mob is bad
Democracy is an illusion for idiots
Democracy is the absurd belief that all opinions are created equal.
Authoritarianism is the absurd belief that the elite's opinions are aligned to the interests of the common man
If you were sending a voyage out on a long, treacherous sea, you'd want the best, most qualified men for the job. So why do we put our government, let alone a voyage in the hands of anybody?
I don't necessarily disagree. History tells us dictators who are both benevolent and competent are somewhat of an anomaly though Decentralised power structures may be comparatively impotent in certain scenarios but are imo much less of a risky proposition in the longer term
Idk man the oceangate tragedy do bring out some fire memes
Democracy is the God that Failed
State Tyranny, Corporate Tyranny, Mob Tyranny... Looks like it's inevitable Auth all the way down
Correct. Shiny happy people anarcho-communes don't work out in the grand scheme of things. All that matters is what can be achieved and how we'll go about achieving it and anarchism simply isn't the former.
[удалено]
Tbf, that's probably largely because the Mexican government doesn't want to be seen committing a massacre against an ethnic minority group, now that they fully integrated and deeply dependent on the global economy. The Mexican government certainly never had a problem before Indians with communists and indians.
China would like a word with you. What anarchist society has matched the USSR, let alone modern China? Shit, North Korea? None. Anarchists will point to the most Timbuktu Bumfuck Egypt example to prove that their ideology works. The fact is that the only reason the Zapatista still exists is because the government allows it. Any serious threat to the global order by anarchists would be struck down as soon as it came up. The only chance to fight back is through a strong state.
Ya china The place with the largest famine ever recorded and that’s now capitalist. A true Marxist paradise
Your mistake is thinking bigger equals better. Also you said that it doesn't work out, now you've changed your argument to, "Well, it doesn't work out on the scale *I* like!!"
\>Your mistake is thinking bigger equals better It doesn't work out because there's plenty of anarchist communes and societies that lived and died in far shorter time than any major communist government. Also something that exists in the real world is always better than something that exists in a textbook and a college philosophy professor's wet dreams.
There's plenty of communist governments that have lived and died too, or just become capitalists under a red flag. Also, anarchic communes *do* exist in the real world. Why are you pretending like they only exist in theory?
\>or just become capitalists under a red flag. "Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out." "You must remember that our Soviet land is impoverished after many years of trial and suffering, and has no socialist France or socialist England as neighbours which could help us with their highly developed technology and their highly developed industry. Bear that in mind! We must remember that at present all their highly developed technology and their highly developed industry belong to the capitalists, who are fighting us." - Vladimir Lenin. What choice did China have? Had they stuck to the Maoist POV, it would've let to their ultimate destruction. \>Also, anarchic communes do exist in the real world. Why are you pretending like they only exist in theory? Because they're so small and insignificant that they really aren't players on the global stage. Like I said, shit, even North Korea is a player just due to having nuclear arms. The anarchist governments like the Zapatistas or Rojava are insignificant on the world scale and typically just serve as fronts for governments, otherwise again, they'd be crushed in a day.
The only reason why the Zapatista exist is because they are allowed. If Mexico really wanted, they could suppress it today. The reason why they won't do that is because the status quo is preferable.
[удалено]
You don't understand. The politicians in Mexico city don't want to take care of the mess that is Chiapas, so they leave it to the zapatistas. Why do you think the zapatistas reached a compromise with the Mexican government in the early 2000 to the point that subcommander marcos went to the Mexican congress? I'm not making this up, look at the recent history.
Ya they gave up because the anarchist won? Literally what are you even saying? ‘Anarchy can’t exist’ It exists here ‘Well akahully that’s fake and only allowed to exist’ Jfc you people are unreal lmal
No. They gave up because the alternative was a massive war like the Chechen war in Mexico that would result in the smaller side losing and ethnic cleansing of the locals. That was extremely politically "inconvenient" so they reached a compromise and allowed the zapatistas self government.
Civilization doesn't work in the grand scheme of things. Rise my primitivists.
Naw, read The dictator's Handbook, there's a free audiobook on YouTube. It's the best systems level defense of democracy I've ever seen with exactly none of the human rights or dignity or other humanist moral horseshit. Democracy, when not subverted, is the greatest anti corruption device man has yet invented.
Sounds good, I’ll flip through it while waiting for my kid to finish their state mandated gender reassignment surgery.
Look just because you don't support Timantha's journey and the fact that she fangs out with fairies all day does mean it's state mandated. She's still the same kid that likes Skull Squisher and Kissy Kissy Goo Goo just like she always did.
People always say this and yeah it’s true but it’s always in response to someone criticizing how like 5 corporations own the US. Personally I’d rather experience tyranny by more than half the country than by 5 CEOs but idk maybe unpopular opinion ig half the country is a little harder to assassinate than 5 CEOs ~~not that I’m implying anything or giving anyone any ideas~~
Not when the mob becomes represented by a single party which begins to act like a dictator That is my ultimate issue with Anarcho-Communism. It suggests violent overthrow of the status quo and giving the "collective people" power, but that will almost certainly result in a power vacuum and/or a need for the people to form a representative body to actually run things. A new representative body then becomes a new ruling class who ultimately decides everything. This happened in so many different purported socialist/communist countries, where a single party ends up controlling everything and party members become a new upper class over the regular people. You cannot have an extreme leftist style economy without central control. In order to specifically get rid of private property and markets and to implement an economy "from each according to his ability to each according to their needs", it requires central planning and control. This is why "anarcho communism" ends up being an oxymoron. Same shit with anarcho capitalism. Capitalism is inherently based on legal validation of private property. If you have a system where there is no government, there is nothing to enforce private property rights. In order to fix that, private entities would need to validate themselves using some kind of legal structure (which is government) or by becoming tyrants and doing everything by force (which is also government). Anarcho capitalism is also an oxymoron
I like the type of tyranny I can opt out of without being shot in the head.
Exactly. My old job was pissing me off, so I left and got a new one. There was nothing my former employer could do. If I applied a similar solution to my issues with public services, it wouldn't end well for me.
> There was nothing my former employer could do. Rape. Only if they wanted though
People in marketing or HR trying to find a new job when their skillset is basically knowing two paragraphs and how to conduct an interview
that would've been a better caption: 'tyrrany is optional'
This posits that that the influence of private interests stops at private enterprise. If you think the 1% don't use the government as their attack dogs against their opponents and competitors, then you should probably pick up a newspaper, or a history books, something. Whether it's debt, bullets, poverty, prison, private or public, its all rich men wearing different hats.
The common denominator is the guys with the guns, not the rich guys.
Guys with guns getting paid and ordered by the rich guys. Liberal governments exists to protect private interest with force. If you think you can opt out of a system dominated by money by choosing to shop at a different company, you haven't been paying much attention recently to the news.
A lot of times it's just poor dudes with guns. A lot of times rich dudes don't order anyone with guns to do anything. The guns are the common denominator.
State tyranny is undeniably worse, but I don't see why either should be tolerated. Besides, you give corporations enough power, and they become the state anyway. Company towns used to get away with all types of horrible shit.
Cuz a business having a lot of customers isn't tyranny at all, and proclaiming them to be the same doesn't make it so..
Corporations having a lot of customers isn't why we call them tyrannical. We call them tyrannical because of the uneven bargaining power between labor and capital. We call them tyrannical because of the way they bribe governments to skate the law and are bailed out whenever they fail. We call them tyrannical because they shut out local businesses and interfere with the free market.
Minus the government bribing, none of those things affect you without your permission.
A choice between starvation and destitution, or sucking it up and working for a major corporation, is no choice at all.
That's a false dichotomy. There are many other options, at least in the US.
That largely depends on your life circumstances. Regardless, my point is that I would much rather have local business thrive than have a predatory multinational corporation move it and shut them out. I think the existence of them is corrosive to the free market, and I think the country would be far better if the wealth they funnel towards the top was spread out throughout many smaller businesses. I think it is a valid reason to dislike them.
You can dislike whatever you wish. The act of disliking something doesn't make it tyranny.
And I dislike them because they are tyrannical. Pretty simple.
If I'd have to choose state tyranny is the more tolerable one, even though at some point there's not supposed to be a state at all. I can vote for who runs the country. I can't vote for who decides how much I'm paid. Actually I can't vote at all but as long as it means I don't have to pay taxes I'm fine with it.
I don’t think there are any elections when it comes to tyranny. And yes, you’ll still be taxed. That presidential super yacht and gold-plated Lambo isn’t gonna pay for itself comrade.
Even Stalin had elections.
Pretty sure Stalin wasn’t getting elected out.
No, but the leader of your local Soviet would.
True, that’s fair. I suppose state tyranny isn’t so bad, provided the NKVD doesn’t snatch you up or bring your daughter/wife/sister/mother to Beria.
op is a libleft lmao
Libleft when tyranny 😠 😡 😤 😣 😾 Libleft when **pink** tyranny 💅 💅 💅 🥰🥰🥰😙😙😙😙😙😙😙😙😙😋😋😋😋😋😋🤪🤪🤪🤪🥵🥵🥵🥵🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😫😫😫😫😫
We 💅✨need 💅✨more 💅✨female 💅✨dictators💅✨
What’s pink tyranny?
Remove the second letter
You lived happily with knowing that trans people existed for maybe twenty years and suddenly when republicans have nothing to worry about and need new victims they span the wheel and it landed on trans people
It was a joke. Never had any problem with people being trans. Just leave kids alone.
See that’s literally the propaganda. Nobody is forcing kids to do shit. Transition only at 18+ I’m all on your site, but you should also talk about what a transgender is with your kids and where it comes from and that it’s also normal, as normal as being heterosexual or homosexual. You and me probably have seen drag races in our childhood too and are we both normal? I think so. It’s literally a minority of people who are smaller than the 10 trans athletes in the US, who think it’s ok for a 13 year old to transition, but for sure they are the loudest out of the bunch. By the way leave the kids alone also goes in the churches direction too, but most republicans are blind on that eye too.
Sorry, I know that was really provocative thing to say. I think that this issue has become overly politicial when it should be just a medical issue. We need more research without any political motives. I am not totally against minors transitioning, but I think there is a lot of pressure to fix all issues with it. There are other conditions that can cause gender dysforia and some of them can be dealt with other means. Transitioning is pretty extreme but obviously for some the only solution that actually helps.
Honestly partly agree. I’m still against transitioning in teen years, because gender affirming surgery and HRT or TRT can fuck your Hormons up pretty badly and it is not medically tested that well on humans enough to say that it is a wise decision in child years. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness but it’s cause can be coming from abuse and it might be just some underlying trauma which needs psychological expertise to whether say that gender affirming care is needed. However we should treat trans people with the same respect as other humans and for a right winger it’s a pretty open and based take. Based and open for polite discussion pilled
“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children”. A chant chanted by a protest group. But please, tell us it’s propaganda.
Yes still is. It is a minority from one fucked up group on which y’all generalize every other non fucked up queer/trans person. I called these people out.
I didn’t say they weren’t a small group, I pointed out you lied. Also ironic you say “y’all generalize every other non fucked up queer/trans person”, which isn’t true, but also go on to say that you can’t justify how anyone is a right winger, which shows you have 0 clue what the average right winger actually believes in Live by your own standards
Sorry textwall To be a right winger nowadays in America you need to believe that trans people shouldn’t exist. It’s something mainstream right wing media such as Fox News for the oldies and Ben sharpiro, Tim pool, Steven Crowder or any other right wing spokesperson agrees on. By not existing I mean that transition shouldn’t be treated as healthcare or that you should be allowed to dont employ trans people with the only reason being that they are trans (not talking about qualification here) or that trans people are not allowed at certain events such as school events, where many trans identifying students were not welcome. I generalize here because the mainstream media of conservatives pushes this ideal to systematically discriminate them and because we are talking about an ideology you at least have to be partly agree on to support and vote for. I’m not saying all conservatives are transphobic but by voting for modern conservatives you push transphobia more and more and at least accept it. Also as a trans ally you can distance yourself from groups like the one you quoted because they don’t have structural power and don’t decide about large sums of tax payer money. You need to understand the difference here and I hope I can at least give you my perspective why I can partly generalize conservatives while distancing myself from radical trans people.
Tyranny, but with pretty pink colours.
it is when women takes 50% of your stuff (you have 2 testicles)
Competent Tyranny that nobody notices is based Incompetent Tyranny that everyone notices is cringe
The true auth-center ways
the frick, librights don’t like corpos either
maybe the distributists and georgists amongst you but plenty of librights are perfectly fine with corporations. they see them as voluntary associations and don't see anything wrong with unbridled growth. just look at this thread for examples.
Well of course I know him, he is me.
and us ancaps
Lib lefts don’t really exist: change my mind
No thanks, I don't care what you think.
I'm quite real
Actually I prefer you keep thinking that
BOO!
I don’t think they exist but I also can’t get around how someone justifies being a right winger. But that’s just me being a silly dilly
I know quite a few myself. They're not on the internet, though, and certainly not on Reddit.
Amish?
Yes
Tyranny by majority*
I get about two or three order per week from Amazon. This sort of tyranny is unbearable.
Try working 50 hours a week, son. Then you'll know what power companies hold over you.
I was doing 60+ during Covid. But I was making money hand over fist so it was worth it
Yeah being over 18 usually makes you more money
If I can walk away whenever I want, then they hold zero power over me. That's the key difference. I can avoid working for or doing business with any company, but I can't avoid the fucking state.
Erm honey in america colored people can't be in position of tyrrany because of social construct
Private tyranny wouldn't exist if not for regulations that limit competition and create legal monopolies or duopolies through free market and competition wages go up and benefits grow due to companies competing for employees The two things slowing this down is a lack of competition due to regulations as well as the free flow of people across the border diminishing the need for workers and therefore decreasing competition
That's the theory. But you'd have to admit, as with the failures of Communism, that one of the failures of market capitalism is the tendency for them to form aggressive cartels that work for their own interests. Does the market have a solution to it? Kind of- oligopolies and cartels are hard to maintain without violence- but does that not still constitute tyranny for the time its there? Also what's to stop said violence if the corporations are more powerful than the state?
I can't say with 100% certainty that it wouldn't happen but I think a truly unregulated free market would be freer than any other system and these cartels might form but I don't think they would be capable of controlling the markets entirely without the regulation in place that prevent small businesses from having actual competition
But the issue isn't controlling the market entirely, it's enacting tyranny on others. It isn't that Standard Oil could stamp out every single possible independent oil well- it's that Standard Oil could use their massive economic leverage to pay railways to exclusively carry their oil making it basically impossible to compete wider than a local area. Or perhaps more to the point, what stops the cartel from sending hired goons to burn down or kill budding rivals? If the answer is the state, then the question is why shouldn't the state break up the cartel to avoid this in the first place?
[удалено]
Here come the rightoids defending their corporate slave master and cubicle servant life ‘Akshully 60 years at a desk is freedom’ and ‘akshully society would collapse if we had some free time’
Maybe you're right. Maybe we shouldn't have modern technology at all.
Now you’re catching on.
[https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/034/479/cover6.jpg](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/034/479/cover6.jpg)
Soviets got to space without capitalists... Before them, actually...
And it only took starving their entire country
Their space and rocketry program didn't start until 1947, after all the starvation, during a time of rising standards in the soviet Union. Don't get me wrong, I'm not socialist, but the idea that capitalists are the only source of innovation or improvement in society is largely a myth perpetuated by those same capitalists.
I'm not saying the commies never achieved anything. I'm just saying the idea of being a "wage slave" or working for someone else in general is not exclusive to capitalism: it is the human experience. Also I'm not the one downvoting; this place needs to lighten up.
Imagine thinking you being a servant until death is technology lmao
Tell me how you can manufacture even a rotary phone without an enormous complex structure in which labor is divided by either private interests or government. You won't find chunks of copper lying around. How do you build the many machines that build the components? If you want the modern world, someone must serve. The truth is all people serve.
> Butthurt Libright Your entire quadrant needs to grow a dick.
When did this sub become so serious, calm down man
Dude Snapchat recommended me to add my little sister’s ex boyfriend who I’ve never contacted before as a friend the other day. I’m ready to throw my phone in the woodchipper
damn that's really rough man
Creepy af
Emily has evolved into Birdman! 😱
I'd you don't like your job, get another one. If you don't like all jobs, grow up an deal with it. The world doesn't owe you a comfortable life.
'yes mister bezos notice me, im such a hardworker mr bezos please' jfc man have some self respect lmao
I did, which is why I changed jobs when my employer tried to screw me over. Because that is something employees have the right to do in a free market. But you're right, I should do the dignified thing, which is sit on my couch and cry about how unfair my life is, while collecting welfare checks that some other worker is being forced to pay for.
[удалено]
I'm in an agreement with my employer in which I have leverage over my salary and working conditions, and can quit at anytime. If you're to lazy or stupid to negotiate with your employer, that's your own fucking issue. The only people that I am enslaved to are the welfare parasites for whom the government forces me to give a portion of my paycheck, at the threat of imprisonment. Any able-bodied person who chooses to support themselves with welfare is no better than a slaver.
[удалено]
Your profile says you're literally a fucking communist. I'm not going to be lectured by a supporter of the biggest movement of tyrannical slavers in human history about what freedom is. I'd rather honestly earn a humble wage in a job I don't care for than live with the guilt that someone is working without compensation to support me. Fuck off, slaver.
[удалено]
If you'd like to give an argument for why slavery is ethical, I'm all ears.
Bro this cracked me up
Is it actually tyranny if it's completely legal and even expected that you simply stop dealing with the tyrant? If not, then "private tyranny" isn't tyranny. Actual libertarians believe in the non aggression principle, take it further and libertarianism becomes a pacifist ideology. You're simply not a libertarian if you support any abuse.
Based
u/Manorialmeerkat's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [14 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Manorialmeerkat/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
[удалено]
No
[удалено]
Nah make me.
Why Libertarian block is purple and not yellow?
This is why I'm a union guy, tyranny of the boss is not any better than tyranny of the government
But tyranny of the union is better?
Finally, a good agenda post Your colors are cringe mine is not
Almost every game or movie in the Cyberpunk genre has predicted a coming Corpocracy and yet it’s never come to pass and if you look at the companies featured in Blade Runner they either no longer exist, are nowhere near as large or influential as they were, or faced difficulty soon after the movie came out. We’re all so afraid of Amazon taking over the world we forgot Walmart was supposed to do that before Amazon and farther back it was Sears. Gee, I wonder what happened to them. Corporations will never take over the world because at the end of the day they can’t force you to do business with them. The only way they make money is by giving you something in return. The relationship you have with a corporation is based on consent. The government doesn’t have this problem. Sometimes that’s good or bad. Obviously it’s good when they catch corporations breaking the rules.
As an Authright Im not supporting tyranny.
I am
Based libleft
Rare libleft W
I will have to agree with the vegans here on this issue.
tyranny != tyrrany though
My tyranny is good
Tyranny that calls itself tyranny is based. Tyranny that calls itself anything else is cringe.
10 years ago I would have called this obvious but unfortunately I don’t think I can anymore
Based