Trump's Push to Keep American Businesses Here

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Alright, I'll let you go to your safe space then, but just remember this; being prepared to die for your cause is not enough, for the courage of your convictions, you must be prepared to kill, and/or by extension order the deaths of millions as necessary, to defend your revolution, be you Bolshevik, or be you Minuteman, no matter.

I suppose that would solve Zlaxer's 'too many people' problem. Capital can yet be saved with Smitty's courageous hand at the wheel.

[Smitty-48]

The right is all about the prerogatives of the sovereign over the masses, the only difference in America, is that the sovereign, is the individual, and this is in the end, why the American revolution, must be defended from socialism, by any means necessary.

There's nothing about automation which undermines capital, I assure you, labour manufacturing is hardly the be all and end all of markets, make no mistake.

Capital doesn't need saving, that is of course the propaganda of the socialists, but they're going to be disappointed, as capital does not end with the buggy whips, quite the contrary.

You do realize that the socialists declared that industrialization would be the end of capital as well, right? Hundred years ago? Yeah, that's how we ended up the with Bolsheviks; how many times does the left have to be wrong about everything, before we stop listening to them?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

And when sovereign individuals choose to exercise their right of free association in order to secure better lives for themselves?

[Smitty-48]

And when sovereign individuals choose to exercise their right of free association in order to secure better lives for themselves?

Let freedom ring, but it is not the sovereign's responsibility to give you leverage where you have none, if you have the leverage by market forces, more power to you, if you were an association of intellectual property barons in the post industrial revolution, no doubt you'd prosper and rightly so, but if you are an association of buggy whips, don't think that the sovereign's are bound to restrict their own liberties to save you from obsolescence.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

And when sovereign individuals choose to exercise their right of free association in order to secure better lives for themselves?

Let freedom ring, but it is not the sovereign's responsibility to give you leverage where you have none, if you have the leverage by market forces, more power to you, if you were an association of intellectual property barons in the post industrial revolution, no doubt you'd prosper and rightly so, but if you are an association of buggy whips, don't think that the sovereign's are bound to restrict their own liberties to save you from obsolescence.

I'd like to put a provisional pin in that statement, because I agree with it almost 100%. I would only add that whatever state apparatuses and contracts that exist in this post industrial revolution should try to strike a balance between the interests of the barons and the rest of the sovereign individuals that will almost certainly be the backbone of their intellectual property empires.

This will probably involve restricting some of the liberties of both parties, which I am comfortable with, since I am not a doctrinaire partisan... or, as you so graciously put it, I lack the courage of my convictions.

[Smitty-48]

And when sovereign individuals choose to exercise their right of free association in order to secure better lives for themselves?

Let freedom ring, but it is not the sovereign's responsibility to give you leverage where you have none, if you have the leverage by market forces, more power to you, if you were an association of intellectual property barons in the post industrial revolution, no doubt you'd prosper and rightly so, but if you are an association of buggy whips, don't think that the sovereign's are bound to restrict their own liberties to save you from obsolescence.

I'd like to put a provisional pin in that statement, because I agree with it almost 100%. I would only add that whatever state apparatuses and contracts that exist in this post industrial revolution should try to strike a balance between the interests of the barons and the rest of the sovereign individuals that will almost certainly be the backbone of their intellectual property empires.

This will probably involve restricting some of the liberties of both parties, which I am comfortable with, since I am not a doctrinaire partisan... or, as you so graciously put it, I lack the courage of my convictions.

Greater individual liberty is the path to prosperity, "striking a balance" between liberty and prosperity is a false dichotomy.

Shouldn't have to be said, to an American, but there it is.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Greater individual liberty is the path to prosperity, "striking a balance" between liberty and prosperity is a false dichotomy.

Shouldn't have to be said, to an American, but there it is.

Where on earth did I say I wanted to strike a balance between liberty and prosperity. I said I want to strike a balance between the competing interests of people.

All people's interests are not always aligned, shouldn't have to be said to anyone, but there it is.

[Smitty-48]

Greater individual liberty is the path to prosperity, "striking a balance" between liberty and prosperity is a false dichotomy.

Shouldn't have to be said, to an American, but there it is.

Where on earth did I say I wanted to strike a balance between liberty and prosperity. I said I want to strike a balance between the competing interests of people.

All people's interests are not always aligned, shouldn't have to be said to anyone, but there it is.

You just said that you want the state apparatus, to restrict the liberties of the individual, in order to "strike a balance", in the interests of the individual, which, again, makes no sense, it's typical leftist gibberish.

It's not the state's role to ensure that everyone's interests are aligned by apparatus neither, so more gibberish from you.

It's all feel goodery, Han-Mon, everything you say is a fallacy simply meant to make you feel better, you're not even a socialist, you're a fuckin' liberal, you spineless twat.

Why didn't you just vote for Hillary, you feel goodery spewing liberal gibberish clown?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You just said that you want the state apparatus, to restrict the liberties of the individual, in order to "strike a balance", in the interests of the individual, which, again, makes no sense, it's typical leftist gibberish.

All states and all contracts restrict liberty to one extent or another. They are good states and good contracts to the extent that they are entered with consent.

It's not the state's role to ensure that everyone's interests are aligned by apparatus neither, so more gibberish from you.

Don't recall making that statement either. So, either misunderstanding or misrepresentation by you.

It's all feel goodery, Han-Mon, everything you say is a fallacy simply meant to make you feel better, you're not even a socialist, you're a fuckin' liberal, you spineless twat.

I will accept that as a statement from the chair.

[Smitty-48]

Oh don't bother fisking me you purity spiralling panty waist... you don't even have principles, do you? It's all feel goodery, isn't it?

You're not a fuckin' socialist, you just say that because you think it's edgy, you're so liberal, you're the Justin Trudeau of the DCF.

Go take a selfie and signal your virtue to the other Bernie Bros, Justin.