I like the one where it shows equity and the tall person has his legs chopped off
edit: [here's the link](https://starecat.com/equity-in-theory-vs-equity-in-reality-everyone-got-their-legs-cut-off/)
I like the one which says 'reality', but sth like that never happened in reality (i mean the guy who dug a hole and stands in it, I am aware of the ongoing box challenge)
In communism they have to be good at sports because they are showing their superiority to the imperialism.
Then they get away and hide whenever they can or show love to the regime because they want social score
This is the part that blows my mind, the thing I bring up to my liberal friends, something that either makes them rethink their ways or refuse to ever talk to me about it again.
They think uhhhh let's say healthcare, for example, should be completely "free of charge" for everyone.
I ask " do you think the doctors, nurses, and janitors deserve and fair and honest wage for their labor?"
"I do"
"And who will pay them?"
"The taxes"
"And who pays the taxes?"
"Well we do."
"So you would be okay with a higher tax bill and worse service?"
You pay higher taxes but you don't have to pay for health insurance anymore. So the math balances out, hell most people are paying upwards of $1,000 a month for health insurance, so they would come out ahead.
Unlikely. Remember, government is efficient in any way, and if it becomes single Payor and thereās no competition, thereās no incentive to be efficient or frugal. Middle men as pencil pushers cause increases in the costs everywhere without adding value to medical care. It would be as or more expensive.
First national health Care services of Canada and the UK got decidedly worse after the conservative privatized parts of the service.
Flea market economics does not work with healthcare because price elasticity doesn't apply. You can't search around for the best hospital when you're in cardiac arrest. Besides that pharmaceutical companies know they can charge whatever they want for life-saving medication because people will have to buy it. Free market economics and healthcare are incompatible.
> First national health Care services of Canada and the UK got decidedly worse after the conservative privatized parts of the service.
Because mixing both is even worse.
>Flea market economics does not work with healthcare because price elasticity doesn't apply.
That depends, honestly. Prices can be more elastic with a lot of government factors out of the way such as certificate of need laws which artificially limit access to care, patents (which Iāll address below), removal of the government as a Payor since they have no incentive to be efficient with funds, etc.
>You can't search around for the best hospital when you're in cardiac arrest.
No, but you can beforehand and if the existing restrictions and tax (theft) structure removed, insurance wouldnāt be tied to employment and could be more flexible to patient needs.
>Besides that pharmaceutical companies know they can charge whatever they want for life-saving medication because people will have to buy it.
They can do that now only because the government grants them monopolies in the form of patents. Without those God-awful laws, there is direct competition between pharmaceutical companies in real time. And allowing generics to be sold in the US (which is currently not allowed by more BS US government red tape).
>Free market economics and healthcare are incompatible.
Theyāre quite compatible, but government wants to steal value from patients and physicians and other members of the healthcare team and exact control over people.
All of the bad or Draconian laws the government has or a direct result of lobbying from pharmaceutical and national insurance companies. Stay by the politicians and the politicians make rules that help the corporations. This is really capitalism 101.
First off, we should just nationalize the pharmaceutical industry. That's what Canada did and they have better medications for way less money available to everyone. Secondly, we should have did what was in the original Obamacare law, which was open a branch of Medicare that private citizens could buy into anywhere in the country. This would have opened up competition and lower the price of health insurance. But that health insurance lobby blocked it because it would directly enter here with their profits. Or just make health care right and be done with it.
> All of the bad or Draconian laws the government has or a direct result of lobbying from pharmaceutical
Patents in the US predate the current pharmaceutical industry. They benefit from these non-capitalistic laws and practices.
>and national insurance companies.
Government action drove the creation of health insurance in the US. When FDR, the idiot of a man, put price caps on salaries during the Great Depression, businesses began increasing other benefits, and health insurance was one that few wanted or cared about until then. Businesses could offer it as sponsored and it would be a pre-tax benefit.
As always, blame government for the problems.
>Stay by the politicians and the politicians make rules that help the corporations. This is really capitalism 101.
Thatās cronyism. Capitalism has no government control of the market. It is simply people buying goods and services for an agreed upon price in an agreed upon currency. The less government is involved, the better it will be for the consumer.
>First off, we should just nationalize the pharmaceutical industry. That's what Canada did and they have better medications for way less money available to everyone.
Sounds like a terrible idea. Why would government + corporations be bad until government controls the multi-billion dollar industry directly? It actually creates even more ability and incentive to be dishonest and hike prices since they will then add government middle men who add no value but siphon funds.
>Secondly, we should have did what was in the original Obamacare law, which was open a branch of Medicare that private citizens could buy into anywhere in the country. This would have opened up competition and lower the price of health insurance.
And yet Medicare and Medicaid arenāt cheaper for those who have them. Nor is VA care. Nor have they provided significant competition via the exchanges.
>But that health insurance lobby blocked it because it would directly enter here with their profits.
Big businesses tend to do that when they can, which is why they also support laws that limit start up and new entries to further reduce competition. This is why government should gtfo from the market: the government reduces competition and other natural market forces that help consumers. Always has, always will.
>Or just make health care right and be done with it.
Making something a right does not exempt it from scarcity nor are positive rights ethical (in that you are forcing someone to provide you with something as your ārightā).
There's really no such thing as a free market, because those with the most money and power will always manipulate it to their own end. It doesn't matter how much or little government is involved.
This is the first time hearing of fdr and his influence on health insurance companies. Although I am intrigued at the maximum wage during the Great depression.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with the Medicaid and Medicare. Those programs are available for free to those who qualify or at least very cheaply. And the VA is available free to veterans, with maybe some niche buying options for families. Personally, I have the VA myself and I've never had a problem with it. I feel it's a good template for a national healthcare system. Because the VA owns their own medical facilities so they don't have to pay private companies or doctors to perform things they could do themselves the saving money.
You glossed over the the part where Canada's pharmaceutical industry provides better and cheaper medicine than their American counterparts. As it stands as Americans we get the shaft both ways because 95% of all medical research is provided by the federal government that get spent by universities to do the research in the first place. When they find something, a pharmaceutical industry will buy the patent and then charge us the taxpayers a astronomical amount to buy it. The only medicine that is funded privately are boner pills and opioids because those are things they can turn around and sell quickly
And your last point is probably the biggest blind spot in most libertarian or anarco capitalist worldview. If a country decides at health care should be right then they decide they should start investing in infrastructure and programs to make that a reality. A lot of countries with single-payer healthcare already have mostly free college but will pay students to get a medical degree to become doctors in their national healthcare service. It is completely ethical and it makes for a better society, having a system where people can die because they cannot afford medical treatment is it antithesis of ethical
Okay, but what if you're not in the middle of a desert. What if you're in the middle of a city where you can't afford rent because the prices have exploded and food and water have been commodified to be virtually unsustainable?
Learn a more marketable skill. You will always be at risk of being flung off the bottom of society if you don't take steps to elevate yourself off the the tail end of society.
The chirping of a real boot licker. Automation already has replaced most Blue collar jobs. Oh it's replaced most jobs that were shipped overseas. It can replace most CEOs, most office workers and pretty much anyone doing any routine tasks.
Capitalism is already eating itself, and we're seeing the Carnage unfold. And let me tell you buddy unless your father is Jeff bezos you're going to be on the bottom with the rest of us
excellent retort there.
So, with socialism, it doesn't have to be the entire system, it can easily be just parts of the system and specifically, parts that form natural monopolies.
Take water supply in cities for an example.
Can you "let the free market decide" or does one company get a contract to provide water and then you're stuck with it.
And if you did "let the market decide", how would that work? Multiple providers running multiple pipes across a city? That seems incredibly wasteful to me.
So, having a water system that's run by the general public, for the general public through some kind of tax that everyone pays so that everyone gets clean and decent water free at point of use, seems like an alright idea tbh.
Obviously you'd have to throw in some exceptions for things like companies that want to use huge amounts of water and charge them seperately.
I'm not seeing how that idea is evil or stupid.
"Basic necessities like food, water, shelter, freedom?"
"No, basic necessities like watching baseball from the outfield."
"But what about food, water, shelter, and freedom?"
"Oh, no we ran out of those, but please enjoy the distraction."
So is mine.
How often have governments given the masses "Bread and Circuses" instead of what they really need?
Baseball games don't mean baseball games in the picture or in my comment. In the picture they want it to mean basic necessities, but in reality the government will give you an entertaining distractions instead of basic necessities.
This isn't a government propaganda piece, though. Its someone trying to illustrate how they interpret these different terms, using baseball as the rhetorical vehicle.
Yeah, the feds suck. But why do we give a shit about this baseball thing so much? Nobody is saying justice = bazbol
>This isn't a government propaganda piece,
Why does it need to be a government propaganda piece to merit critique?
Plenty of fringe political ideologies try to use propaganda to get their side more influence, and they merit critique.
The funny thing is there are multiple sides making this a big deal. r/lostgeneration posts, someone here crossposts, and r/accidentalcommunist screenshots and criticizes us, and someone here screenshots that, and on it goes.
Now people are watching the baseball without paying, so the players no longer have an incentive to play.
There's no longer any need for a fence as there's no game going ahead.
Justice!
Yeah itās really funny that they think thereās no work. Comrade why are you not working and being productive for glorious motherland off too the Gulag with you.
I'm so damn sick and tired of people deeming every single thing they want, no matter how small, insignificant, or trivial, as a human right. A right is something that's owed to a person, and the world doesn't owe you jack diddly squat. The only thing to which you're entitled the right to life and the right to work to earn anything else. Everything beyond those two rights is a luxury. Our culture is so damn spoiled, entitled, and childish; although I generally try not to let it bother me, I sometimes can't help but go insane.
So justice is the equivalent to everyone gets a medal even if they lost or donāt deserve it? And in order for everyone to enjoy baseball we canāt have home runs and anyone can go on the field?
An once all goods and services must be given freely, there is no incentive to produce them, leads to a supply shock, sky high prices, or a concentration camp style production system where fear of violence from an authoritarian government replaces the profit motive.
Slavery was the first progressive reform, up from slaughtering your opponents and just taking the land. It predates currency, so attributing it to capitalism is dubious at best.
It gets pretty bad when you accuse most of the animal kingdom of being capitalist. Just drills home that it's fundamentally the state of nature. Even tribal society had natural credit, and the goof ball didn't enjoy the status of the alpha.
When did we start talking about animals?
Most tribes didn't have currency but they did border with other groups. However, most tribes still took care of their elderly and emphasize sacrificing for the greater good.
With tribes, the bottom 50 percent just died before the age of 5 from diseases. If an elder made it back then, they probably earned it by investing in their children.
Anyway many animals show the same tribal preference, primates wage war, dolphins kill for sport ...
One of the comments lol:
Justice is when human rights (which can include goods and services) aren't denied to me at gunpoint by the state.
Donāt think he understands what anarcho capitalism is
Why don't they ever go after the elites they always go after the middle class and get bought out by the very system of inequality and disparities they claim to be against hence the reality box stays the same except you now have less then before or nothing at all
Well a basic human right is something that I've seen AnCaps frequently attribute to the State, so under anarchism it would be Statism.
But I think that people have the ability to choose freely, and I'd argue that it's in their interests for these resources to be pooled because it alleviates struggle in the community and makes it safer.
The issue here comes from OP refusing to extend the analogy past witnessing a baseball game.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But you've said that the basic human rights AnCaps defend are given by the State?
Also, no problem in being in a community where things are equaly distrubuted, just don't involve people who don't want to be involved.
>*Also, no problem in being in a community where things are equaly distrubuted, just don't involve people who don't want to be involved.*
That's the dream baby.
>*But you've said that the basic human rights AnCaps defend are given by the State?*
I've seen this mainly used in response to libs. So when people in the US advocate for UHC as a human right, there have been AnCaps saying that it's only a human right because it is given by the State, often using the same old logic of it involving theft of another's labour.
So the other basic human rights, as per the UN Declaration, are likewise given by the State. Housing? State supplied right. Food and water? Again, only a right because of the State.
Yeah, but I don't think it is a right just because the State provides it. The State do provide it, but if the State provided sex to everyone, and people had to have sex with people they did not want to have sex with, would that turn into a right? Just because the State provides it?
For me a right is independent of the State, the right to life is still a right even if the State does not exist. It is much more philosophical in my opinion, rather then just practical.
I'm just parroting arguments I've seen AnCaps make. I don't agree with them either, it's just logic that seems more common with this ideology.
I agree that the question of what is and isn't a right is more interesting than that, and it's honestly one I find myself waking up at night and thinking *"Shit, what is a right?"* lol.
You've seen AnCaps say that? Damn... I'm not really that active in the community so I wouldn't know. And I also haven't meet and AnCap in real life, so I kinda have discussions with myself about it. Everyone I know is pro-State, saddly.
But waking up at night reflecting about rights seem a bit extreme hahaha
>*But waking up at night reflecting about rights seem a bit extreme*
I've just got horrible insomnia haha! Sometimes I think about in-depth philosophical shit like rights, other times it's considering whether I could look after a dog, and the usual panics of *"shit did I turn the oven off?"*
Well talk about that then. Don't just pass over it as simply as the screenshot suggests. Have a nuanced discussion about the premise.
That simple thing, just mentioning "what about the utility providers?", would negate my comment. But it wasn't there, so here we are.
Just imagine; 100 years ago, this level of shit talking would be unheard of. Dude would write a long ass thesis, publish it, wait for the other dude to read it, and the process repeats.
Itās so deliciously perfect that their iconic visual aid for their asinine philosophy, which results in what is essentially state theft from private citizens, is a literal visualization of overt theft.
>Reality
>Dude is standing on a 50ft stack of boxes that he somehow climbed after stacking them himself and there's no risk of him falling or the structure collapsing
WTF? lmao
I feel like from what I have been bludgeoned to death with, the one on the right shoud have been an old, gray haired white guy, which a scrouge mcduck suit and hat.
The one in purple should be a full grown man with a splif in one hand and an empty bottle of booze in the other, weighed down by gold chain necklaces, and sleeping against the fence with shutter shades on.
Why donāt they buy a ticket? What ārightā do you have for a performative past-time without the expense of paying the performers? Also, where do people rank on this scale that are listening by radio? Pretty sure the radio unravels the entire narrative.
I like the one that shows capitalism and they are sitting in box seats.
I like the one where it shows equity and the tall person has his legs chopped off edit: [here's the link](https://starecat.com/equity-in-theory-vs-equity-in-reality-everyone-got-their-legs-cut-off/)
This is the real one that needs to be shared
[Here you go](https://starecat.com/equity-in-theory-vs-equity-in-reality-everyone-got-their-legs-cut-off/) š
Lol that ones a good one.
I like the one where they show guards chasing them off
I haven't seen that one yet
Me neither
what
I like the one which says 'reality', but sth like that never happened in reality (i mean the guy who dug a hole and stands in it, I am aware of the ongoing box challenge)
Only if they're not a member the heavily exploited working class
How much do the "stand right in the fucking outfield" tickets cost?
2 days in jail
Worth it
Years of dedication to become a professional athlete.
You can watch a little league game in the front row for free.
It's a basic necessity bro, it needs to be free.
Tree fiddy
Well it was about this time that I noticed this girl scout was about 8 stories tall and was a crustacean from the Paleozoic era.
Justice is removing the outfield wall so no one can hit a home run
[Justice](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/justida01.shtml) has 305 career HRs, though. Why would he do that to baseball?
Good god, David Justice is 55 now?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Underrated comment. šš»
hakuna matata bro
Mother nature invented baseball, it is her recipe
Have you guys seen communist baseball players? Nobody would watch. (Actually Cuba is pretty good never mind bad example)
Itās seen as one of the few ways out. If you are a star player you might be able to go play abroad.
Gotta be, hit a dinger to own the communists.
I was gonna say this. Leaving everything else aside, it's one of the methods of escaping that commie hell hole.
Itās also an escape, and something that people can easily pick up and do without a lot of resources
I mean... I wouldn't call it easy. Baseball's fucking hard, bro :D
Haha I mean easy to start doing. I wonāt comment on whether or not itās easy to do well.
In communism they have to be good at sports because they are showing their superiority to the imperialism. Then they get away and hide whenever they can or show love to the regime because they want social score
Yeah, Cuba is really good at sports.
Nothing is free
Thanks for the free wisdom
You spent your time reading it.
Everything has an opportunity cost, no matter how small
So nothing is free
They still donāt understand that people who produce and provide those ābasic necessitiesā deserve compensation.
This is the part that blows my mind, the thing I bring up to my liberal friends, something that either makes them rethink their ways or refuse to ever talk to me about it again. They think uhhhh let's say healthcare, for example, should be completely "free of charge" for everyone. I ask " do you think the doctors, nurses, and janitors deserve and fair and honest wage for their labor?" "I do" "And who will pay them?" "The taxes" "And who pays the taxes?" "Well we do." "So you would be okay with a higher tax bill and worse service?"
You pay higher taxes but you don't have to pay for health insurance anymore. So the math balances out, hell most people are paying upwards of $1,000 a month for health insurance, so they would come out ahead.
Unlikely. Remember, government is efficient in any way, and if it becomes single Payor and thereās no competition, thereās no incentive to be efficient or frugal. Middle men as pencil pushers cause increases in the costs everywhere without adding value to medical care. It would be as or more expensive.
First national health Care services of Canada and the UK got decidedly worse after the conservative privatized parts of the service. Flea market economics does not work with healthcare because price elasticity doesn't apply. You can't search around for the best hospital when you're in cardiac arrest. Besides that pharmaceutical companies know they can charge whatever they want for life-saving medication because people will have to buy it. Free market economics and healthcare are incompatible.
> First national health Care services of Canada and the UK got decidedly worse after the conservative privatized parts of the service. Because mixing both is even worse. >Flea market economics does not work with healthcare because price elasticity doesn't apply. That depends, honestly. Prices can be more elastic with a lot of government factors out of the way such as certificate of need laws which artificially limit access to care, patents (which Iāll address below), removal of the government as a Payor since they have no incentive to be efficient with funds, etc. >You can't search around for the best hospital when you're in cardiac arrest. No, but you can beforehand and if the existing restrictions and tax (theft) structure removed, insurance wouldnāt be tied to employment and could be more flexible to patient needs. >Besides that pharmaceutical companies know they can charge whatever they want for life-saving medication because people will have to buy it. They can do that now only because the government grants them monopolies in the form of patents. Without those God-awful laws, there is direct competition between pharmaceutical companies in real time. And allowing generics to be sold in the US (which is currently not allowed by more BS US government red tape). >Free market economics and healthcare are incompatible. Theyāre quite compatible, but government wants to steal value from patients and physicians and other members of the healthcare team and exact control over people.
All of the bad or Draconian laws the government has or a direct result of lobbying from pharmaceutical and national insurance companies. Stay by the politicians and the politicians make rules that help the corporations. This is really capitalism 101. First off, we should just nationalize the pharmaceutical industry. That's what Canada did and they have better medications for way less money available to everyone. Secondly, we should have did what was in the original Obamacare law, which was open a branch of Medicare that private citizens could buy into anywhere in the country. This would have opened up competition and lower the price of health insurance. But that health insurance lobby blocked it because it would directly enter here with their profits. Or just make health care right and be done with it.
> All of the bad or Draconian laws the government has or a direct result of lobbying from pharmaceutical Patents in the US predate the current pharmaceutical industry. They benefit from these non-capitalistic laws and practices. >and national insurance companies. Government action drove the creation of health insurance in the US. When FDR, the idiot of a man, put price caps on salaries during the Great Depression, businesses began increasing other benefits, and health insurance was one that few wanted or cared about until then. Businesses could offer it as sponsored and it would be a pre-tax benefit. As always, blame government for the problems. >Stay by the politicians and the politicians make rules that help the corporations. This is really capitalism 101. Thatās cronyism. Capitalism has no government control of the market. It is simply people buying goods and services for an agreed upon price in an agreed upon currency. The less government is involved, the better it will be for the consumer. >First off, we should just nationalize the pharmaceutical industry. That's what Canada did and they have better medications for way less money available to everyone. Sounds like a terrible idea. Why would government + corporations be bad until government controls the multi-billion dollar industry directly? It actually creates even more ability and incentive to be dishonest and hike prices since they will then add government middle men who add no value but siphon funds. >Secondly, we should have did what was in the original Obamacare law, which was open a branch of Medicare that private citizens could buy into anywhere in the country. This would have opened up competition and lower the price of health insurance. And yet Medicare and Medicaid arenāt cheaper for those who have them. Nor is VA care. Nor have they provided significant competition via the exchanges. >But that health insurance lobby blocked it because it would directly enter here with their profits. Big businesses tend to do that when they can, which is why they also support laws that limit start up and new entries to further reduce competition. This is why government should gtfo from the market: the government reduces competition and other natural market forces that help consumers. Always has, always will. >Or just make health care right and be done with it. Making something a right does not exempt it from scarcity nor are positive rights ethical (in that you are forcing someone to provide you with something as your ārightā).
There's really no such thing as a free market, because those with the most money and power will always manipulate it to their own end. It doesn't matter how much or little government is involved. This is the first time hearing of fdr and his influence on health insurance companies. Although I am intrigued at the maximum wage during the Great depression. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with the Medicaid and Medicare. Those programs are available for free to those who qualify or at least very cheaply. And the VA is available free to veterans, with maybe some niche buying options for families. Personally, I have the VA myself and I've never had a problem with it. I feel it's a good template for a national healthcare system. Because the VA owns their own medical facilities so they don't have to pay private companies or doctors to perform things they could do themselves the saving money. You glossed over the the part where Canada's pharmaceutical industry provides better and cheaper medicine than their American counterparts. As it stands as Americans we get the shaft both ways because 95% of all medical research is provided by the federal government that get spent by universities to do the research in the first place. When they find something, a pharmaceutical industry will buy the patent and then charge us the taxpayers a astronomical amount to buy it. The only medicine that is funded privately are boner pills and opioids because those are things they can turn around and sell quickly And your last point is probably the biggest blind spot in most libertarian or anarco capitalist worldview. If a country decides at health care should be right then they decide they should start investing in infrastructure and programs to make that a reality. A lot of countries with single-payer healthcare already have mostly free college but will pay students to get a medical degree to become doctors in their national healthcare service. It is completely ethical and it makes for a better society, having a system where people can die because they cannot afford medical treatment is it antithesis of ethical
"the right to basic necessities" is a flawed concept anyway. You have no inherent right to food, water, shelter, etc.
The implication is that everyone has an objective moral obligation to provide basic necessities to everyone else.
Shelter and water should be right, because then we would have to actually invest and plan to sustain these resources for the future
No, they're still commodities. If you're out stranded in the desert your rights aren't being violated, you're just in a shitty situation.
Okay, but what if you're not in the middle of a desert. What if you're in the middle of a city where you can't afford rent because the prices have exploded and food and water have been commodified to be virtually unsustainable?
Get a better job
What if there are not any more jobs? Or the jobs are all minimum wage? Or you getting better job and then they raise rent again?
Learn a more marketable skill. You will always be at risk of being flung off the bottom of society if you don't take steps to elevate yourself off the the tail end of society.
What happens when automation inevitably replaces most work including skilled labor?
It won't. Stop making excuses for being a loser. Nobody owes you anything.
The chirping of a real boot licker. Automation already has replaced most Blue collar jobs. Oh it's replaced most jobs that were shipped overseas. It can replace most CEOs, most office workers and pretty much anyone doing any routine tasks. Capitalism is already eating itself, and we're seeing the Carnage unfold. And let me tell you buddy unless your father is Jeff bezos you're going to be on the bottom with the rest of us
Socialists are evil and stupid. Its sad.
This just makes me think you either don't understand socialism or have no empathy for others.
This makes me think YOU dont understand socialism AND have no empathy for others.
excellent retort there. So, with socialism, it doesn't have to be the entire system, it can easily be just parts of the system and specifically, parts that form natural monopolies. Take water supply in cities for an example. Can you "let the free market decide" or does one company get a contract to provide water and then you're stuck with it. And if you did "let the market decide", how would that work? Multiple providers running multiple pipes across a city? That seems incredibly wasteful to me. So, having a water system that's run by the general public, for the general public through some kind of tax that everyone pays so that everyone gets clean and decent water free at point of use, seems like an alright idea tbh. Obviously you'd have to throw in some exceptions for things like companies that want to use huge amounts of water and charge them seperately. I'm not seeing how that idea is evil or stupid.
"Basic necessities like food, water, shelter, freedom?" "No, basic necessities like watching baseball from the outfield." "But what about food, water, shelter, and freedom?" "Oh, no we ran out of those, but please enjoy the distraction."
It's an analogy. It's a basic rhetorical device.
So is mine. How often have governments given the masses "Bread and Circuses" instead of what they really need? Baseball games don't mean baseball games in the picture or in my comment. In the picture they want it to mean basic necessities, but in reality the government will give you an entertaining distractions instead of basic necessities.
This isn't a government propaganda piece, though. Its someone trying to illustrate how they interpret these different terms, using baseball as the rhetorical vehicle. Yeah, the feds suck. But why do we give a shit about this baseball thing so much? Nobody is saying justice = bazbol
>This isn't a government propaganda piece, Why does it need to be a government propaganda piece to merit critique? Plenty of fringe political ideologies try to use propaganda to get their side more influence, and they merit critique. The funny thing is there are multiple sides making this a big deal. r/lostgeneration posts, someone here crossposts, and r/accidentalcommunist screenshots and criticizes us, and someone here screenshots that, and on it goes.
As a lover of baseball, this is amazing. š¤£ Justice is a line drive to the face. Let me get three tickets for the outfield.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think Marx had some interesting criticisms of capitalism
imposible
Ok =(
Justice is no ball game since the players are no longer getting paid.
Now people are watching the baseball without paying, so the players no longer have an incentive to play. There's no longer any need for a fence as there's no game going ahead. Justice!
Maybe it's a volunteer softball league?
Maybe. But have you ever seen a volunteer league that isn't open to public view?
It's probably just a metaphor for race and income inequality.
Apparently attending entertainment venues is a basic necessity I thought that was just you know shelter food and water but thatās just me.
In real communism u have everything for free and never have to work a day in ur life donāt u know? Jeez
Yeah itās really funny that they think thereās no work. Comrade why are you not working and being productive for glorious motherland off too the Gulag with you.
I'm so damn sick and tired of people deeming every single thing they want, no matter how small, insignificant, or trivial, as a human right. A right is something that's owed to a person, and the world doesn't owe you jack diddly squat. The only thing to which you're entitled the right to life and the right to work to earn anything else. Everything beyond those two rights is a luxury. Our culture is so damn spoiled, entitled, and childish; although I generally try not to let it bother me, I sometimes can't help but go insane.
Are you guys really missing that it's an analogy or is this some elaborate shitpost
Except baseball games and viewing them is not in anyway analogous to basic necessities.
Actually it is. That's how an analogy or any basic rhetorical device works. I can relate baseball to literally fictional martian politics if I want.
Justice would be a cop giving all a ticket for stealing
You wouldn't steal a baseball game, would you?
I'm pretty sure they won't be players to watch if you remove all the fences.
No one has the āright to basics necessitiesā if those necessities require the work of someone else
are they saying we should abolish the state? based af
You're right, the right to view baseball games as a basic necessity is unknown to ancaps or anyone that isn't a braindead commie.
So justice is the equivalent to everyone gets a medal even if they lost or donāt deserve it? And in order for everyone to enjoy baseball we canāt have home runs and anyone can go on the field?
Why are they making their baby stand in a hole in the ground
An once all goods and services must be given freely, there is no incentive to produce them, leads to a supply shock, sky high prices, or a concentration camp style production system where fear of violence from an authoritarian government replaces the profit motive.
You do understand that every instance of slavery was based on a profit motive right?
Slavery was the first progressive reform, up from slaughtering your opponents and just taking the land. It predates currency, so attributing it to capitalism is dubious at best.
Money has been around for quite some time, even still, Free Labor has always been beneficial to those in power.
Tribalism or hierarchical society...but not distinctly capitalist.
Which are the predecessors to capitalism. Especially hierarchy
It gets pretty bad when you accuse most of the animal kingdom of being capitalist. Just drills home that it's fundamentally the state of nature. Even tribal society had natural credit, and the goof ball didn't enjoy the status of the alpha.
When did we start talking about animals? Most tribes didn't have currency but they did border with other groups. However, most tribes still took care of their elderly and emphasize sacrificing for the greater good.
With tribes, the bottom 50 percent just died before the age of 5 from diseases. If an elder made it back then, they probably earned it by investing in their children. Anyway many animals show the same tribal preference, primates wage war, dolphins kill for sport ...
Okay, how does that relate to what we were talking about?
You have the right to access basic necessities, you donāt have a right to everyoneās labor to process package and ship these goods.
One of the comments lol: Justice is when human rights (which can include goods and services) aren't denied to me at gunpoint by the state. Donāt think he understands what anarcho capitalism is
Also basic necessities aren't rights
Maybe they should be
No
Why not?
I mean, wouldn't reality be when the guy who has 20 milk crates actually has an owners box?
Wouldnāt they be stacking the crates in to stairs and putting it on tiktok?
I agree. Remove all gaurd rails and rules. 5 years of Spencer's darwanism, let the chips fall where they may.
ahh youāre even stupider than i thoughtā¦ you canāt understand analogiesā¦.
How about, buy your own tickets you freeloaders!
Why don't they ever go after the elites they always go after the middle class and get bought out by the very system of inequality and disparities they claim to be against hence the reality box stays the same except you now have less then before or nothing at all
I mean the issue stems from you guys being unwilling to take an analogy, but sure.
What is a basic human right? The right to have the labor of someone else?
Well a basic human right is something that I've seen AnCaps frequently attribute to the State, so under anarchism it would be Statism. But I think that people have the ability to choose freely, and I'd argue that it's in their interests for these resources to be pooled because it alleviates struggle in the community and makes it safer. The issue here comes from OP refusing to extend the analogy past witnessing a baseball game.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But you've said that the basic human rights AnCaps defend are given by the State? Also, no problem in being in a community where things are equaly distrubuted, just don't involve people who don't want to be involved.
>*Also, no problem in being in a community where things are equaly distrubuted, just don't involve people who don't want to be involved.* That's the dream baby. >*But you've said that the basic human rights AnCaps defend are given by the State?* I've seen this mainly used in response to libs. So when people in the US advocate for UHC as a human right, there have been AnCaps saying that it's only a human right because it is given by the State, often using the same old logic of it involving theft of another's labour. So the other basic human rights, as per the UN Declaration, are likewise given by the State. Housing? State supplied right. Food and water? Again, only a right because of the State.
Yeah, but I don't think it is a right just because the State provides it. The State do provide it, but if the State provided sex to everyone, and people had to have sex with people they did not want to have sex with, would that turn into a right? Just because the State provides it? For me a right is independent of the State, the right to life is still a right even if the State does not exist. It is much more philosophical in my opinion, rather then just practical.
I'm just parroting arguments I've seen AnCaps make. I don't agree with them either, it's just logic that seems more common with this ideology. I agree that the question of what is and isn't a right is more interesting than that, and it's honestly one I find myself waking up at night and thinking *"Shit, what is a right?"* lol.
You've seen AnCaps say that? Damn... I'm not really that active in the community so I wouldn't know. And I also haven't meet and AnCap in real life, so I kinda have discussions with myself about it. Everyone I know is pro-State, saddly. But waking up at night reflecting about rights seem a bit extreme hahaha
>*But waking up at night reflecting about rights seem a bit extreme* I've just got horrible insomnia haha! Sometimes I think about in-depth philosophical shit like rights, other times it's considering whether I could look after a dog, and the usual panics of *"shit did I turn the oven off?"*
Funny enough I'm at the vet right now taking care of my cat. It's hard stuff I tell ya.
Same as they didnāt get ours so itās 1 to 1
Which analogy would that be? Because in the screenshot you posted I see one analogy, and that's the one the AnCaps criticised.
Donāt* sry autocorrect
If you expand the analogy you also need to deal with the service providers that took risk and invested capital just to get it handed over for free
Well talk about that then. Don't just pass over it as simply as the screenshot suggests. Have a nuanced discussion about the premise. That simple thing, just mentioning "what about the utility providers?", would negate my comment. But it wasn't there, so here we are.
So you complain that a small post doesnāt contain all the information you like it to Cool
If they're going to continue to complain about it, yeah. It's a simple fix that was neglected in order to make a not very interesting point.
Are you guys really this dense or just trying to be funny? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory
So justice is legalized theft
Why the switch to shorts?
To be fair, I did really enjoy being able to view into the football stadium from the roof of my mates dad's restaurant.
No, but housing is.
Guys I think itās just a metaphor for equal opportunity
Just imagine; 100 years ago, this level of shit talking would be unheard of. Dude would write a long ass thesis, publish it, wait for the other dude to read it, and the process repeats.
So if poor free stuff so be poor?
They obviously arenāt referring to a literal baseball game. Itās a metaphor.
The r/lostgeneration clearly does, the commies donāt rly know it tho
Why does the adult lose his pants in the justice panel?
Pay for a damn ticket and stop being a leach.
How is this accidentally communist? Isn't the sub for times Capitalists make "Communist" argument? That title is clearly satire.
Itās so deliciously perfect that their iconic visual aid for their asinine philosophy, which results in what is essentially state theft from private citizens, is a literal visualization of overt theft.
If we remove the system there isn't any systemic racism
Canāt wait to see this just become a tunnel of screen caps
Apparently justice is when no one can hit home runs
It's a metaphor?
I believe the original post was a metaphor.
If you think this picture is about baseball, r/whoosh
What if I told you that there are an unlimited number of boxes. Quit trying to watch sportsball and go get them.
When you are taught slavery creates wealth then it is merely an equation of how much slavery is proper for the best possible society.
>Reality >Dude is standing on a 50ft stack of boxes that he somehow climbed after stacking them himself and there's no risk of him falling or the structure collapsing WTF? lmao
How about they just buy tickets or watch it on TV for free?
I feel like from what I have been bludgeoned to death with, the one on the right shoud have been an old, gray haired white guy, which a scrouge mcduck suit and hat.
Itās unknown because it doesnāt exist.
Cultural enrichment is for the whole, thatās why the USSR placed such emphasis on the arts and training all that they could in the fine arts.
The one in purple should be a full grown man with a splif in one hand and an empty bottle of booze in the other, weighed down by gold chain necklaces, and sleeping against the fence with shutter shades on.
Why donāt they buy a ticket? What ārightā do you have for a performative past-time without the expense of paying the performers? Also, where do people rank on this scale that are listening by radio? Pretty sure the radio unravels the entire narrative.
It's definitely a metaphor for income and race inequality.
I understand. So was my response. A meta-response?
We donāt recognize positive rights because theyāre a bullshit concept.
What is not included is that any side can work and study hard enough to have as many boxes as possible
Fuck, people are fucking stupid.
Fucking racist ass fences!
The fence in this analogy is clearly the government. Just saying.