@return-of-the-blech had asked me on a separate post to deconstruct Anarcho-Capitalism (ancap) as an ideology. The post was already ridiculously long, and he'd already ignored evidence in the thread in which he was now asking for me for a fresh argument. So I declined.

But.

I will consider engaging in this farce if he can demonstrate he's actually got capital. Possesses the means of production in some sense, even if only as a member of the petit bourgeoisie. (Like me, technically.)

I justifiably have to pretty regularly prove my leftist bonafides as a business owner and employer. I view this as no less sensible. You're an Ancap? Are you?

Do you own a business? Do you possess capital? Because if you don't, being an Ancap doesn't make you a future John Galt. It makes you a willing commodity. Labor is something people with capital typically dial up and down like a knob. You're simply agreeing to be fine when it turns down on you when you're an Ancap laborer.

So before I agree to tear your ideology into teeny tiny pieces, please confirm you qualify as an actual capitalist. I'm afraid we've found the sole place where self ID shouldn't be respected. And if you're an Ancap laborer, I don't see the point in arguing with a poor example of an ideology. I try not to argue straw men, even willing sapient ones.

Hey, everybody! Look at this fucking idiot who doesn't understand what capital actually is!

You've already proven you can't prove your claims regarding anarcho-capitalism because you can't even define it, or even the t

Do you or do you not possess:

A) Your own means of production

B) Wealth

Is there some other definition of capital that you mean? Or are you a capitalist without capital? A sort of post modern Don Quixote?

Fucking mobile. I got a phone call while typing and it fucking posted.

So, we've established you don't know the definition of capital, and probably anarchy as well, so now we know why you can't "deconstruct" anything.

As for what I have, that's none of your business. I don't have to defend myself to people who like to choke on boot leather.

Friend? I'm giving you the definition used in economics. I have asked you to provide another if the one used by Adam Smith isn't sufficient for you. You haven't. I'm convinced therefore you are:

A) A satire account. In which case you have picked an ideology it is impossible to parody. They're all just kinda like this.

B) Ignorant of what you speak.

Here, guy. Read. Learn. Grow.

Yeah, you're missing a lot. No surprise.

To argue that one can't be a capitalist (believe in capitalism) without owning specific types of capital just makes you look even more of an idiot.

You sure showed me. And the dictionary. And the soft science of Economics. As I keep trying to tell you, words have meanings. You are not "a capitalist". You provide the commodity of labor. You lack the capital to be a capitalist. The fact that you believe you are a capitalist is actually rather sad. They have you carrying their water.

Your Tumblr is full of sad tales of woe caused or exacerbated by capitalism and you keep coming to heel like a kicked dog. Come on, dude. Wake up and smell your own exploitation and get mad at the right people.

That's a venture capitalist. Do you not know words can have more than one specific meaning?

You're an absolute moron if you think government and their co-conspirators aren't the right people.

You mean like the list of wealthy DeSantis donors I linked for you prior? The one filled with private corporations and private wealth? Those co-conspirators? Or did you mean some other co-conspirators that aren't on the donor list of politicians of literally any stripe?

Capitalism props up its host government and seeks to control it with wealth. Why do you not accept this fact? It's, again, protected by law here in the US. Money is speech, remember?

This hurts, man. Please stop not understanding your own favored economic system.

Those who work in tandem with government to throttle the market and stifle competition are not in favor of a free market and are therefore not capitalist, but rather they are vile, corrupt and greedy.

State involvement violates the very concept of a free market.

Learn to read.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. No true scotsman-- I mean capitalist would EVER stifle competition! Especially not THEIR OWN competition in pursuit of market share!  Because that’s not Real Capitalism.  And you’re a capitalist despite not having any capital.  But the people with the capital who control these corporations and foundations donating the funds to the politicians, they’re not Real Capitalists.  Because the way in which they amass their capital to effect social change doesn’t create a pure paradigm of free market utopia.  So that simply can’t be capitalism, and they simply can’t be scotsmen.  I mean capitalists.  Have I got that about right?

Utopias don't exist.

Thank you for illustrating you don't understand the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. And also, again, that you neither understand the definitions of "capitalism" nor "capitalist."

Capitalism, by definition, requires competition. If your goal is to destroy your competition rather than compete fairly that is then, by definition, not capitalism. Just as an Italian whose family has always been in Italy 🇮🇹 and has never, in the least, been Scottish, e.g. from Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿, cannot be a true Scotsman.

Utopias don't exist, but a Really Free Market won't be prone to all the foibles we see in market capitalism as currently practiced? Utopias aren't real, but you believe in miracles?

I won't bother commenting on the fallacy talk. You're just... so. So wrong. At this point, it's clear to me you're choosing not to get it as a life choice. So goodbye forever.

@return-of-the-blech had asked me on a separate post to deconstruct Anarcho-Capitalism (ancap) as an ideology. The post was already ridiculously long, and he'd already ignored evidence in the thread in which he was now asking for me for a fresh argument. So I declined.

But.

I will consider engaging in this farce if he can demonstrate he's actually got capital. Possesses the means of production in some sense, even if only as a member of the petit bourgeoisie. (Like me, technically.)

I justifiably have to pretty regularly prove my leftist bonafides as a business owner and employer. I view this as no less sensible. You're an Ancap? Are you?

Do you own a business? Do you possess capital? Because if you don't, being an Ancap doesn't make you a future John Galt. It makes you a willing commodity. Labor is something people with capital typically dial up and down like a knob. You're simply agreeing to be fine when it turns down on you when you're an Ancap laborer.

So before I agree to tear your ideology into teeny tiny pieces, please confirm you qualify as an actual capitalist. I'm afraid we've found the sole place where self ID shouldn't be respected. And if you're an Ancap laborer, I don't see the point in arguing with a poor example of an ideology. I try not to argue straw men, even willing sapient ones.

Hey, everybody! Look at this fucking idiot who doesn't understand what capital actually is!

You've already proven you can't prove your claims regarding anarcho-capitalism because you can't even define it, or even the t

Do you or do you not possess:

A) Your own means of production

B) Wealth

Is there some other definition of capital that you mean? Or are you a capitalist without capital? A sort of post modern Don Quixote?

Fucking mobile. I got a phone call while typing and it fucking posted.

So, we've established you don't know the definition of capital, and probably anarchy as well, so now we know why you can't "deconstruct" anything.

As for what I have, that's none of your business. I don't have to defend myself to people who like to choke on boot leather.

Friend? I'm giving you the definition used in economics. I have asked you to provide another if the one used by Adam Smith isn't sufficient for you. You haven't. I'm convinced therefore you are:

A) A satire account. In which case you have picked an ideology it is impossible to parody. They're all just kinda like this.

B) Ignorant of what you speak.

Here, guy. Read. Learn. Grow.

Yeah, you're missing a lot. No surprise.

To argue that one can't be a capitalist (believe in capitalism) without owning specific types of capital just makes you look even more of an idiot.

You sure showed me. And the dictionary. And the soft science of Economics. As I keep trying to tell you, words have meanings. You are not "a capitalist". You provide the commodity of labor. You lack the capital to be a capitalist. The fact that you believe you are a capitalist is actually rather sad. They have you carrying their water.

Your Tumblr is full of sad tales of woe caused or exacerbated by capitalism and you keep coming to heel like a kicked dog. Come on, dude. Wake up and smell your own exploitation and get mad at the right people.

That's a venture capitalist. Do you not know words can have more than one specific meaning?

You're an absolute moron if you think government and their co-conspirators aren't the right people.

You mean like the list of wealthy DeSantis donors I linked for you prior? The one filled with private corporations and private wealth? Those co-conspirators? Or did you mean some other co-conspirators that aren't on the donor list of politicians of literally any stripe?

Capitalism props up its host government and seeks to control it with wealth. Why do you not accept this fact? It's, again, protected by law here in the US. Money is speech, remember?

This hurts, man. Please stop not understanding your own favored economic system.

Those who work in tandem with government to throttle the market and stifle competition are not in favor of a free market and are therefore not capitalist, but rather they are vile, corrupt and greedy.

State involvement violates the very concept of a free market.

Learn to read.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. No true scotsman-- I mean capitalist would EVER stifle competition! Especially not THEIR OWN competition in pursuit of market share!  Because that’s not Real Capitalism.  And you’re a capitalist despite not having any capital.  But the people with the capital who control these corporations and foundations donating the funds to the politicians, they’re not Real Capitalists.  Because the way in which they amass their capital to effect social change doesn’t create a pure paradigm of free market utopia.  So that simply can’t be capitalism, and they simply can’t be scotsmen.  I mean capitalists.  Have I got that about right?

@return-of-the-blech had asked me on a separate post to deconstruct Anarcho-Capitalism (ancap) as an ideology. The post was already ridiculously long, and he'd already ignored evidence in the thread in which he was now asking for me for a fresh argument. So I declined.

But.

I will consider engaging in this farce if he can demonstrate he's actually got capital. Possesses the means of production in some sense, even if only as a member of the petit bourgeoisie. (Like me, technically.)

I justifiably have to pretty regularly prove my leftist bonafides as a business owner and employer. I view this as no less sensible. You're an Ancap? Are you?

Do you own a business? Do you possess capital? Because if you don't, being an Ancap doesn't make you a future John Galt. It makes you a willing commodity. Labor is something people with capital typically dial up and down like a knob. You're simply agreeing to be fine when it turns down on you when you're an Ancap laborer.

So before I agree to tear your ideology into teeny tiny pieces, please confirm you qualify as an actual capitalist. I'm afraid we've found the sole place where self ID shouldn't be respected. And if you're an Ancap laborer, I don't see the point in arguing with a poor example of an ideology. I try not to argue straw men, even willing sapient ones.

Hey, everybody! Look at this fucking idiot who doesn't understand what capital actually is!

You've already proven you can't prove your claims regarding anarcho-capitalism because you can't even define it, or even the t

Do you or do you not possess:

A) Your own means of production

B) Wealth

Is there some other definition of capital that you mean? Or are you a capitalist without capital? A sort of post modern Don Quixote?

Fucking mobile. I got a phone call while typing and it fucking posted.

So, we've established you don't know the definition of capital, and probably anarchy as well, so now we know why you can't "deconstruct" anything.

As for what I have, that's none of your business. I don't have to defend myself to people who like to choke on boot leather.

Friend? I'm giving you the definition used in economics. I have asked you to provide another if the one used by Adam Smith isn't sufficient for you. You haven't. I'm convinced therefore you are:

A) A satire account. In which case you have picked an ideology it is impossible to parody. They're all just kinda like this.

B) Ignorant of what you speak.

Here, guy. Read. Learn. Grow.

Yeah, you're missing a lot. No surprise.

To argue that one can't be a capitalist (believe in capitalism) without owning specific types of capital just makes you look even more of an idiot.

You sure showed me. And the dictionary. And the soft science of Economics. As I keep trying to tell you, words have meanings. You are not "a capitalist". You provide the commodity of labor. You lack the capital to be a capitalist. The fact that you believe you are a capitalist is actually rather sad. They have you carrying their water.

Your Tumblr is full of sad tales of woe caused or exacerbated by capitalism and you keep coming to heel like a kicked dog. Come on, dude. Wake up and smell your own exploitation and get mad at the right people.

That's a venture capitalist. Do you not know words can have more than one specific meaning?

You're an absolute moron if you think government and their co-conspirators aren't the right people.

You mean like the list of wealthy DeSantis donors I linked for you prior? The one filled with private corporations and private wealth? Those co-conspirators? Or did you mean some other co-conspirators that aren't on the donor list of politicians of literally any stripe?

Capitalism props up its host government and seeks to control it with wealth. Why do you not accept this fact? It's, again, protected by law here in the US. Money is speech, remember?

This hurts, man. Please stop not understanding your own favored economic system.

Who, oh who, could be co-conspiring with the political class?  Oh, if only there was a way to tell!

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors

@return-of-the-blech had asked me on a separate post to deconstruct Anarcho-Capitalism (ancap) as an ideology. The post was already ridiculously long, and he'd already ignored evidence in the thread in which he was now asking for me for a fresh argument. So I declined.

But.

I will consider engaging in this farce if he can demonstrate he's actually got capital. Possesses the means of production in some sense, even if only as a member of the petit bourgeoisie. (Like me, technically.)

I justifiably have to pretty regularly prove my leftist bonafides as a business owner and employer. I view this as no less sensible. You're an Ancap? Are you?

Do you own a business? Do you possess capital? Because if you don't, being an Ancap doesn't make you a future John Galt. It makes you a willing commodity. Labor is something people with capital typically dial up and down like a knob. You're simply agreeing to be fine when it turns down on you when you're an Ancap laborer.

So before I agree to tear your ideology into teeny tiny pieces, please confirm you qualify as an actual capitalist. I'm afraid we've found the sole place where self ID shouldn't be respected. And if you're an Ancap laborer, I don't see the point in arguing with a poor example of an ideology. I try not to argue straw men, even willing sapient ones.

Hey, everybody! Look at this fucking idiot who doesn't understand what capital actually is!

You've already proven you can't prove your claims regarding anarcho-capitalism because you can't even define it, or even the t

Do you or do you not possess:

A) Your own means of production

B) Wealth

Is there some other definition of capital that you mean? Or are you a capitalist without capital? A sort of post modern Don Quixote?

Fucking mobile. I got a phone call while typing and it fucking posted.

So, we've established you don't know the definition of capital, and probably anarchy as well, so now we know why you can't "deconstruct" anything.

As for what I have, that's none of your business. I don't have to defend myself to people who like to choke on boot leather.

Friend? I'm giving you the definition used in economics. I have asked you to provide another if the one used by Adam Smith isn't sufficient for you. You haven't. I'm convinced therefore you are:

A) A satire account. In which case you have picked an ideology it is impossible to parody. They're all just kinda like this.

B) Ignorant of what you speak.

Here, guy. Read. Learn. Grow.

Yeah, you're missing a lot. No surprise.

To argue that one can't be a capitalist (believe in capitalism) without owning specific types of capital just makes you look even more of an idiot.

You sure showed me. And the dictionary. And the soft science of Economics. As I keep trying to tell you, words have meanings. You are not "a capitalist". You provide the commodity of labor. You lack the capital to be a capitalist. The fact that you believe you are a capitalist is actually rather sad. They have you carrying their water.

Your Tumblr is full of sad tales of woe caused or exacerbated by capitalism and you keep coming to heel like a kicked dog. Come on, dude. Wake up and smell your own exploitation and get mad at the right people.

That's a venture capitalist. Do you not know words can have more than one specific meaning?

You're an absolute moron if you think government and their co-conspirators aren't the right people.

You mean like the list of wealthy DeSantis donors I linked for you prior? The one filled with private corporations and private wealth? Those co-conspirators? Or did you mean some other co-conspirators that aren't on the donor list of politicians of literally any stripe?

Capitalism props up its host government and seeks to control it with wealth. Why do you not accept this fact? It's, again, protected by law here in the US. Money is speech, remember?

This hurts, man. Please stop not understanding your own favored economic system.

The commie doublethink where capitalists are simultaneously obsessed with money and nothing but money and will do absolutely anything to make more money but also are so utterly evil and cruel that they will do things that deny them vast amounts of money just so that they can hurt the poors.

They’re confusing the free market with the way communist regimes typically play out

I'm not a commie, but here's Ron Desantis's top 100 donors.

Some rich donors and numerous corporations financially supporting a guy who is on the record about coming for entitlement programs and criminalizing homelessness. He even praised Jordan Neely, the guy who killed a homeless man on the subway. The guy's an anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, far right ideologue. By his own admission and description.

While it's true they'll all likely cut bait as his campaign continues to flame out, none of the above stopped them from donating to it in the first place.

Once you have all the money you need, you start buying power. It's not really ... a controversial concept, I shouldn't think. People can, do, and will pour fortunes out in pursuit of power. The US has some unfortunate Supreme Court rulings enshrining that right as protected speech, even.

Neoliberalism is a system designed to convert power into money and vice versa in as efficient a means as practical. Capitalism's role in that is efficiently turning money into power. It's the government that allows the power to become money again. That's what regulation is supposed to curtail. There ought to be guard rails preventing self-dealing and conflicts of interest. Absent them, power and capital tend to concentrate in a manner history tells us doesn't end well for the societies involved.

TL;DR: Fuck Stalin, but this is really missing the actual point. Which is that under capitalism money doesn't care how it's made and in our neoliberal society, power doesn't much care how much it costs to SUCCESSFULLY attain it. Pretending the two aren't related in an existentially violent way under late capitalism seems rather disingenuous to me if you accept the above as true.

Desantis is a politician, aka government official. You really don't know the meaning of anarchy, do you?

You have the reading comprehension of a dry mollusk.

@return-of-the-blech had asked me on a separate post to deconstruct Anarcho-Capitalism (ancap) as an ideology. The post was already ridiculously long, and he'd already ignored evidence in the thread in which he was now asking for me for a fresh argument. So I declined.

But.

I will consider engaging in this farce if he can demonstrate he's actually got capital. Possesses the means of production in some sense, even if only as a member of the petit bourgeoisie. (Like me, technically.)

I justifiably have to pretty regularly prove my leftist bonafides as a business owner and employer. I view this as no less sensible. You're an Ancap? Are you?

Do you own a business? Do you possess capital? Because if you don't, being an Ancap doesn't make you a future John Galt. It makes you a willing commodity. Labor is something people with capital typically dial up and down like a knob. You're simply agreeing to be fine when it turns down on you when you're an Ancap laborer.

So before I agree to tear your ideology into teeny tiny pieces, please confirm you qualify as an actual capitalist. I'm afraid we've found the sole place where self ID shouldn't be respected. And if you're an Ancap laborer, I don't see the point in arguing with a poor example of an ideology. I try not to argue straw men, even willing sapient ones.

Hey, everybody! Look at this fucking idiot who doesn't understand what capital actually is!

You've already proven you can't prove your claims regarding anarcho-capitalism because you can't even define it, or even the t

Do you or do you not possess:

A) Your own means of production

B) Wealth

Is there some other definition of capital that you mean? Or are you a capitalist without capital? A sort of post modern Don Quixote?

Fucking mobile. I got a phone call while typing and it fucking posted.

So, we've established you don't know the definition of capital, and probably anarchy as well, so now we know why you can't "deconstruct" anything.

As for what I have, that's none of your business. I don't have to defend myself to people who like to choke on boot leather.

Friend? I'm giving you the definition used in economics. I have asked you to provide another if the one used by Adam Smith isn't sufficient for you. You haven't. I'm convinced therefore you are:

A) A satire account. In which case you have picked an ideology it is impossible to parody. They're all just kinda like this.

B) Ignorant of what you speak.

Here, guy. Read. Learn. Grow.

Yeah, you're missing a lot. No surprise.

To argue that one can't be a capitalist (believe in capitalism) without owning specific types of capital just makes you look even more of an idiot.

You sure showed me. And the dictionary. And the soft science of Economics. As I keep trying to tell you, words have meanings. You are not "a capitalist". You provide the commodity of labor. You lack the capital to be a capitalist. The fact that you believe you are a capitalist is actually rather sad. They have you carrying their water.

Your Tumblr is full of sad tales of woe caused or exacerbated by capitalism and you keep coming to heel like a kicked dog. Come on, dude. Wake up and smell your own exploitation and get mad at the right people.

The commie doublethink where capitalists are simultaneously obsessed with money and nothing but money and will do absolutely anything to make more money but also are so utterly evil and cruel that they will do things that deny them vast amounts of money just so that they can hurt the poors.

They’re confusing the free market with the way communist regimes typically play out

I'm not a commie, but here's Ron Desantis's top 100 donors.

Some rich donors and numerous corporations financially supporting a guy who is on the record about coming for entitlement programs and criminalizing homelessness. He even praised Jordan Neely, the guy who killed a homeless man on the subway. The guy's an anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, far right ideologue. By his own admission and description.

While it's true they'll all likely cut bait as his campaign continues to flame out, none of the above stopped them from donating to it in the first place.

Once you have all the money you need, you start buying power. It's not really ... a controversial concept, I shouldn't think. People can, do, and will pour fortunes out in pursuit of power. The US has some unfortunate Supreme Court rulings enshrining that right as protected speech, even.

Neoliberalism is a system designed to convert power into money and vice versa in as efficient a means as practical. Capitalism's role in that is efficiently turning money into power. It's the government that allows the power to become money again. That's what regulation is supposed to curtail. There ought to be guard rails preventing self-dealing and conflicts of interest. Absent them, power and capital tend to concentrate in a manner history tells us doesn't end well for the societies involved.

TL;DR: Fuck Stalin, but this is really missing the actual point. Which is that under capitalism money doesn't care how it's made and in our neoliberal society, power doesn't much care how much it costs to SUCCESSFULLY attain it. Pretending the two aren't related in an existentially violent way under late capitalism seems rather disingenuous to me if you accept the above as true.

"Good faith effort" my ass, you don't believe a single thing other than Red Team vs. Blue Team, as shown by trying to make this about DeSantis because your worthless commie ass felt Seen. You and DeSantis can both die choking to death on the state's cock since you love it so much, you worthless commie niggerfaggot.

I just need you all to know this was followed by six scrolling screens of super triggered replies. Anyhow, thanks for confirming my supposition about you. Consider therapy.

The commie doublethink where capitalists are simultaneously obsessed with money and nothing but money and will do absolutely anything to make more money but also are so utterly evil and cruel that they will do things that deny them vast amounts of money just so that they can hurt the poors.

They’re confusing the free market with the way communist regimes typically play out

I'm not a commie, but here's Ron Desantis's top 100 donors.

Some rich donors and numerous corporations financially supporting a guy who is on the record about coming for entitlement programs and criminalizing homelessness. He even praised Jordan Neely, the guy who killed a homeless man on the subway. The guy's an anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, far right ideologue. By his own admission and description.

While it's true they'll all likely cut bait as his campaign continues to flame out, none of the above stopped them from donating to it in the first place.

Once you have all the money you need, you start buying power. It's not really ... a controversial concept, I shouldn't think. People can, do, and will pour fortunes out in pursuit of power. The US has some unfortunate Supreme Court rulings enshrining that right as protected speech, even.

Neoliberalism is a system designed to convert power into money and vice versa in as efficient a means as practical. Capitalism's role in that is efficiently turning money into power. It's the government that allows the power to become money again. That's what regulation is supposed to curtail. There ought to be guard rails preventing self-dealing and conflicts of interest. Absent them, power and capital tend to concentrate in a manner history tells us doesn't end well for the societies involved.

TL;DR: Fuck Stalin, but this is really missing the actual point. Which is that under capitalism money doesn't care how it's made and in our neoliberal society, power doesn't much care how much it costs to SUCCESSFULLY attain it. Pretending the two aren't related in an existentially violent way under late capitalism seems rather disingenuous to me if you accept the above as true.

"Andor Season 2 Was Just Weeks Away From Production Before The Studios Refused To Meet The Very Reasonable Demands Of The Actor's Union, Shutting Down Production."

@vaspider

The actors aren't the ones making the demands.

Yes, they are.

The actors, through their union, have made demands for their new contract. That's... part of the negotiation process with a union. They're not suggestions or requests or "please sir may we have a crumb."

They're demands, and that's a good thing. "Do this or we remove our labor." That's part of the point, and removing that language softens what a union does to the point of neutering it.

The actors are on strike in solidarity with the writers, who are the ones with the demands. Pay better attention.

Incorrect! The actors and writers both have demands and are on strike separately for 2 different contracts!

Pay better attention and don't condescend to people who actually know what they're talking about! Here are some links so that you can educate yourself and stop actively showing your ass in public.

https://www.sagaftrastrike.org/post/contracts-expire-without-a-deal

The actors are striking over the terms of their own contract, not simply in solidarity with the writers. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and need to stop saying incorrect things about something that directly affects the livelihoods of others.

I've had a shit day and I'm not in the mood to be incorrectly lectured over something that directly affects friends and family, so maybe next time literally just Google "SAG-AFTRA strike" or "SAG-AFTRA demands" before burping up harmfully incorrect bullshit.

Hope this helps. :)

P.S.

Propaganda and lies

By posting this, you just broke the NAP.

Go ahead and elaborate on how I've done so. It'll be interesting watching your mental gymnastics on how I've violated anyone's rights.

No.

Because lame jokes are all you have . You couldn't make an argument against anarcho-capitalism if you're life depended on it.

You just responded to a raft of evidence of being wrong about the strike with "propaganda and lies", so forgive me if I don't invest much energy into trying to rescue you from your error.

Nobody owes you anything. I thought as an Ancap you'd understand that.

No wonder your jokes suck.

@return-of-the-blech had asked me on a separate post to deconstruct Anarcho-Capitalism (ancap) as an ideology. The post was already ridiculously long, and he'd already ignored evidence in the thread in which he was now asking for me for a fresh argument. So I declined.

But.

I will consider engaging in this farce if he can demonstrate he's actually got capital. Possesses the means of production in some sense, even if only as a member of the petit bourgeoisie. (Like me, technically.)

I justifiably have to pretty regularly prove my leftist bonafides as a business owner and employer. I view this as no less sensible. You're an Ancap? Are you?

Do you own a business? Do you possess capital? Because if you don't, being an Ancap doesn't make you a future John Galt. It makes you a willing commodity. Labor is something people with capital typically dial up and down like a knob. You're simply agreeing to be fine when it turns down on you when you're an Ancap laborer.

So before I agree to tear your ideology into teeny tiny pieces, please confirm you qualify as an actual capitalist. I'm afraid we've found the sole place where self ID shouldn't be respected. And if you're an Ancap laborer, I don't see the point in arguing with a poor example of an ideology. I try not to argue straw men, even willing sapient ones.

Hey, everybody! Look at this fucking idiot who doesn't understand what capital actually is!

You've already proven you can't prove your claims regarding anarcho-capitalism because you can't even define it, or even the t

Do you or do you not possess:

A) Your own means of production

B) Wealth

Is there some other definition of capital that you mean? Or are you a capitalist without capital? A sort of post modern Don Quixote?

Fucking mobile. I got a phone call while typing and it fucking posted.

So, we've established you don't know the definition of capital, and probably anarchy as well, so now we know why you can't "deconstruct" anything.

As for what I have, that's none of your business. I don't have to defend myself to people who like to choke on boot leather.

Friend? I'm giving you the definition used in economics. I have asked you to provide another if the one used by Adam Smith isn't sufficient for you. You haven't. I'm convinced therefore you are:

A) A satire account. In which case you have picked an ideology it is impossible to parody. They're all just kinda like this.

B) Ignorant of what you speak.

Here, guy. Read. Learn. Grow.

I know this was a year ago, but it is interesting that this is at Texas A&M, where just this week the "anti-woke" University President resigned because it was discovered she was interfering with the hiring of black professors, including prestigious ones like Dr. Kathleen McElroy - an A&M grad and Journalism Professor who was going to move from the highly respected UT Journalism program to try to rebuild A&M's failing program - at the behest of conservative and anti-DEI groups.

The University also just suspended a professor for criticizing former conservative talk radio host, Texas Lt Governor, and all around piece of shit Dan Patrick.

@return-of-the-blech had asked me on a separate post to deconstruct Anarcho-Capitalism (ancap) as an ideology. The post was already ridiculously long, and he'd already ignored evidence in the thread in which he was now asking for me for a fresh argument. So I declined.

But.

I will consider engaging in this farce if he can demonstrate he's actually got capital. Possesses the means of production in some sense, even if only as a member of the petit bourgeoisie. (Like me, technically.)

I justifiably have to pretty regularly prove my leftist bonafides as a business owner and employer. I view this as no less sensible. You're an Ancap? Are you?

Do you own a business? Do you possess capital? Because if you don't, being an Ancap doesn't make you a future John Galt. It makes you a willing commodity. Labor is something people with capital typically dial up and down like a knob. You're simply agreeing to be fine when it turns down on you when you're an Ancap laborer.

So before I agree to tear your ideology into teeny tiny pieces, please confirm you qualify as an actual capitalist. I'm afraid we've found the sole place where self ID shouldn't be respected. And if you're an Ancap laborer, I don't see the point in arguing with a poor example of an ideology. I try not to argue straw men, even willing sapient ones.

Hey, everybody! Look at this fucking idiot who doesn't understand what capital actually is!

You've already proven you can't prove your claims regarding anarcho-capitalism because you can't even define it, or even the t

Do you or do you not possess:

A) Your own means of production

B) Wealth

Is there some other definition of capital that you mean? Or are you a capitalist without capital? A sort of post modern Don Quixote?

BLAAARGH!! PUT THE COALS WITHIN MY MOUTH! ROAST YOUR FOOLISH MARSHED MALLOWS!! COLLECT THE ASHES FROM MY ASS TRAY and dispose of them responsibly, especially if they are still warm, fires are no joke. Uh. BLAARGH!!

Encounter: Bufobecue; a metal bipedal frog that will attempt to eat your coal, firewood, &c.

@vaspider how to get me to grill every weekend forever.

Can't talk right this moment, numbah one. The grill is afoot! [Clack tongs] Hearts of Oak are our ships, jolly tars are our men...

BLAAARGH!! PUT THE COALS WITHIN MY MOUTH! ROAST YOUR FOOLISH MARSHED MALLOWS!! COLLECT THE ASHES FROM MY ASS TRAY and dispose of them responsibly, especially if they are still warm, fires are no joke. Uh. BLAARGH!!

Encounter: Bufobecue; a metal bipedal frog that will attempt to eat your coal, firewood, &c.

@vaspider how to get me to grill every weekend forever.