@RegularSanStan@AnticomMoot7@MentisWave would still not be refuted. i should have expected to not have a productive conversation with a leftist, let alone one that advocates for socialism. i'm not going to repeat myself at this point. i'll post a few videos. watch them, don't watch them, i don't care, but anyone that-
@paleosnake1984@doradoxcruzadox@MentisWave honestly, just having an overly detailed furry oc is embarrassing enough. at least with people like yang, it's the good kind of autism.
@aleksgalbion@Alyxhoppe "you have a monopoly on violence on this land"
no. if i invite you into my house and attack you, you are free to fight me to defend yourself. having a monopoly on exclusively the property you own is, by definition, not a monopoly. communism and sophistry go together hand-in-hand.
@RegularSanStan@MentisWave "someone who is agnostic about the existence of a god is an anti-theist because they don't believe in forcing people to worship their particular god"
i'm not arguing against a reasonable person. does it count as "blocking" if it's just a bot or npc? maybe, but why would i care?
@RegularSanStan@MentisWave he is advocating for mutualism, not against capitalism. capitalism is free markets and private property, not the boss structure. he is not opposed to cooperation, just exploitation of labor. he is not an ancap, but he isn't opposed to it. that was the point from the beginning.
@RegularSanStan@AnticomMoot7@MentisWave i've explained myself countless times in great detail. i've provided quotes that prove my exact point. i've explained the context you left out for each of the quotes you provided, and for many of them, even if you were interpreting it correctly, the central claim that we made-
@RegularSanStan@MentisWave principles, then obviously that'd be wrong. he based his opinions on a prediction of what capitalism would lead to that has since been proven wrong. he had no opposition to the ideals of capitalism, only his perception of it's practical outcomes.
@RegularSanStan@MentisWave that's the thing though, he wasn't anti-capitalist, he was anti-usury, and thought capitalism had no solution to it. if he thought that capitalism was inherently exploitative because people not being equal is exploitation, and he knew that just from his analysis of capitalist-
@RegularSanStan@AnticomMoot7@MentisWave no, i think you're playing word games to make him appear to support your claim without realizing that you'd be debasing his entire philosophy into becoming an oxymoron.
@RegularSanStan@MentisWave ancaps would be absolutely fine with it. here's a dictionary definition that's only partially corrupted by the newspeak you guys push. the etymology is still clear, but even the modern definitions support my claims.
https://t.co/THrUKZlRVN
@RegularSanStan@MentisWave actually means is still mostly intact. free markets, and private property. the boss structure is entirely a side-issue. it's part of free markets, of course, and it's the most effective structure we've seen thus far, but if you can find a naturally competitive worker co-op, then-
@RegularSanStan@MentisWave has since been demonstrated to be false. he would have changed his mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. nobody ever said he was a full blown rothbardian ancap, and i even pointed out that the father of capitalism agreed with many of his points. idk what grounds you have to-