List most red pill books and films in existence

List most red pill books and films in existence.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo
quora.com/What-does-Noam-Chomsky-think-of-Thomas-Sowell
www30.zippyshare.com/v/TugycBTp/file.html
mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg
youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY
youtu.be/wuLTprutrDU
geenstijl.nl/archives/images/suicide_note.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Comparisons_with_George_Orwell.27s_Nineteen_Eighty-Four
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Bump.

Sowell is based black man

1984 and Brave New World are obvious ones.

He definitely is. I still need to read Brave New World.

>Sowell
o i am laffin

He has been discredited time and time again on so many topics yet he never changes his mind. It's like you've never watched him confronted by someone who disagrees with him before.

Wow, nice empty claims with 0 sources. Please provide one.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

Revolt Against the Modern World - Julius Evola
Men Among The Ruins - Julius Evola
Twilight of the Idols - Friedrich Nietzsche
The Decline of the West - Oswald Spengler
Letters from a Stoic - Sinica
Chartism - Thomas Carlyle
A Fresh Look at Empiricism - Bertrand Russell
Free Thought and Official Propaganda - Bertrand Russell
Marriage and Morals - Bertrand Russell
Propaganda - Edward Bernays
Propaganda - Jacques Ellul
The Impact of Science on Society - Bertrand Russell
The Scientific Outlook - Bertrand Russell
The Anglo-American Establishment - Carroll Quigley
The Revenge of Gaia - James Lovelock
War Against the Weak - Edwin Black
Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler - Antony C Sutton
Tragedy & Hope - Carroll Quigley
Archeofuturism - Guillaume Faye
Beyond Human Rights - Alain De Benoist
Morning Crafts - Tito Perdue
A Handbook of Traditional Living
The Wasp Question
Defiance - Savitri Devi
Fighting for the Essence - Pierre Krebs
Impeachment of Man - Savitri Devi
Ride the Tiger - Julius Evola
Death of the Liberal Class - Chris Hedges

look into noam chomsky. his arguments tear this uncle tom a new one

noam chomsky rofl kys

Fuck off jew boy

...

Get fucked in the ASS fucking Brit

Wouldn't really call it a red pill but I fucking love this movie

His arguments against what? Noam and Sowell have both written on a wide range of topics. You have provided nothing to substantiate your claim that Sowell has been discredited. An article Chomsky wrote? Book? Debate? You should be ashamed for making these unsubstantiated claims.

By the way,
>Chomsky
You must be underage

I've yet to see anyone so much as make a dent in Sowell's arguments.

I'm making my nation white again.
Cry your liberal tears as bongos break into your house and rape your girlfriend while you sit there masturbating.

Come with the evidence, Jack.

quora.com/What-does-Noam-Chomsky-think-of-Thomas-Sowell

Thanks for the big list, man!

The Forever War is some pretty redpilled sci-fi.

Chomsky...lol.

Noel "More people died in India because of capitalism than the rest of the world because of communism" Chomsky

Happy reading, sir. Plus nice triple dubz

The fact you think this qualifies as a source is pathetic. Kys.

THIS is your evidence? Go back to the fucking coffee shop, bud.

I'm not going to do all the work for you just read his books

Ok, I'll get right on that.

Bertrand Russell? Really nigga?
outside of Logic, his work isn't considered of too much importance, and even then Wittgenstein is way above him in the intelligence of his thoughts.

He is a propagator of knowledge rather than a figure of study in my opinion, it's just that he made Anglos proud because they came into relevance in the field of philosophy after so many years and the dominance of French and Germans. And even then he just tried to discard 95% of Philosophy because he said so.

Dinesh D'Souza "Hillary's America and the Secret History of the Democratic Party"

George Orwell "Homage to Catalonia"

George Orwell "1984"

Schumpeter "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy"

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky "Manufacturing Consent"

Richard J Herrnstein and Charles Murray "The Bell Curve"

Murray N. Rothbard "Man, Economy and State"

Tim Marshall "Prisoners of Geography"

Wayne Perryman "Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats"

Ann Coulter "Demonic"

Sean Trende "The Lost Majority"

Thomas Sowell "Black Rednecks and White Liberals"

Jean Raspail "The Camp of Saints"

Peter Brimelow "Alienation"

Jim Goad "The Redneck Manifesto"

Birgitte Gabriel "Because They Hate"

Hugh Thomas "The Slave Trade"

Ian Smith "The Great Betrayal"

Anything from Robert Plomin

Thomas Madden "A Concise History of the Crusades"

read this book to debunk thomas sowell

u first

>chomsky

sorry, I'm not a faggot

no, you're just closed minded

sowell is anti-trump

you guys just have such low standards for blacks that any black that doesn't mug you is "based"

>noam chomsky
ahahahahahahaha

chomsky is a statist welfare queen. You're right I'm closed minded. My brain hasn't fallen out.

literally don't give a shit. Sowell is basically ancap and anti-welfare

Economics for Helen by Hillaire Belloc

Chomsky knows fuck all about economics. He believes in central bank magic

>a PhD in Linguistics knows more than a PhD in economics

Ok bud

The Redneck Manifesto is borderline life-changing.

Also, thanks for the sweet list.

ad hominid

Does he specifically address Sowell in this book?

it debunks the perspective sowell uses in all his writings

Also don't care. Trump is this year's obvious choice, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.

That's not an ad hominem attack.

You are speaking in such broad terms that you might as well not be saying anything at all. "Go read this book" does nothing to back up your position. It's lazy.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you

So, no.

you're the lazy one since you're refusing to read the book

Of course he is. He doesn't have an actual argument.

chomsky is babby's first postmodern philosopher. he's on the right track that something is wrong with society, and his interest in linguists is... interesting. but his vision for society and government is not viable

not an argument

just because you're ignoring my arguments doesn't mean I don't have arguments.

"Anti Trump"
>Being this wrong

still not an argument

www30.zippyshare.com/v/TugycBTp/file.html

glad you could join us stefan

I trust you've heard about the deleted scene?

It's actually kind of embarrassing. Like, I legitimately kind of feel bad for the guy. My only hope is that he's relatively young and just going through the discovery process.

Giving a (You) for Hayek.

Amazing author. Constitution of Liberty by him is my shit.

make an argument, faggot. Chomsky is entry level shit.

What is this?

The Turner Diaries

still have yet to read it but holy shit its like a dream come true

Based Evola

Dude, we get it. You're an 18 year old fresh out of school, you've read The Communist Manifesto and various writings by Trotsky and you think you have the world figured out and why has no-one ever backed this revolution before? You think everyone are sheeple and you're enlightened. Listen up kiddo, life is gonna hit you hard and you're gonna realise you know little to fuck all about the world. Better start making positive arguments otherwise you're gonna be discarded like all the children who thought they knew better before you.

The Bell Curve is pure redpill.

Orwell was a socialist. You know that, right?

The Origins of Totalitarianism - Hannah Arendt

Basically a jew explaining why jews are hated, pretty redpilled book.

'Intellectuals and Race' by Thomas Sowell

Seconded.

>lalalalala can't hear you not an argument! not an argument lalalalalala
sorry kid, you must be 18 or older to post here
I already linked the book stop with the personal attacks

>tfw you've been pronouncing his last name as sow (like a female pig) ull when it's actually pronounced "Soul"
Been doing it for years.

I feel retarded.

Also, Escape From Freedom - Erich Fromm is pretty redpilled too.

Culture of Critique by Stefan Molyneux

yeah, this was me at the start of college, full of optimism and mistakenly thinking that the reason I hated my normie peers was becasue of capitalism and an unfair system when in reality it was exactly that hyper leftist ideology that was poisoning the minds of my peers to be absolute degenerates unable to think for themselves. studying leftists like Chomsky and Trotsky will only turn you into one of the soulless bureaucrats of the "glorious" revolution

He's just pointing out that you've contributed nothing of substance to this conversation.

based hayek

sometimes I wish I could upvote Cred Forums

that's not true. I said that sowell isn't factual and pointed out that noam's book debunk's sowell. I just wanted people to read the book. I've contributed more to the conversation than anyone else in this thread.

Why read it when you will live it? No spoilers, user

Don't forget the classics, you fags.

"The Republic" by Plato
"Politics" by Aristotle
"On Duties" by Cicero
"Blood Meridian" by Cormac McCarthy

Personally I like Shakespeare a lot, I took a class in High School about his work, and it really helped gain a better understanding of the language. He is pretty redpilled. I just started reading "The Merchant of Venice" today.

>mfw Shylock is kike usurer

Christian morality is also a major theme in his work.

The Prince by Machiavelli.

Alright, man.

I think we all were at some point. The hardest and most fervent anti leftists were previously leftists themselves. I think we've realised just how soulless it feels being on that side and how fucking duped we were

why /pol is always talking about books, economics theories, philosophers? Are pol/ users in average more intelligent? because plus that, pol users notice patterns from the enviroment.

Socialists don't contribute. Mindless parasitism is their lifestyle.

Blood Meridian is the shit. I want to re-read it with one of the companion guides. Lots of shit going on in that book.

Very true. And thanks for the honorary up vote!

>why /pol is always talking about books, economics theories, philosophers?
they only post the same handful of people/books in every thread, and never post stuff that argues against their viewpoint. Cred Forums is like a 4th grader while /lit/ and /hist/ are PhDs.

Necessary. So many short, obscure words that have been out of common parlance for 100+ years

>I took the b8

well played

>pointing out differing levels of prowess and separate academic pursuits is attacking the person

chomsky faggots are worse than atheists

Agreed. I struggled through it my first read, the lack of quotations doesn't help either.

Takes a while to appreciate it.

When I first started taking an interest in the world, politics, etc., I began with the leftist stuff. Even communism seemed appealing early on. Then I continued reading and learning, and I gradually found my way to planet earth.

Actually, I've read that very book. Perhaps you should provide actual quotations because what I read is completely different from how you've described it.

Yeah was me too, until about my mid 30's ffs.

I was a Philosophy major, the most redpilled major.

Most faggots think it's a humanities meme degree. No other degree drops the redpills as heavy and often as Philosophy.

An unlikely pick, but
>downtrodden beta male tries to man up and gets viciously smacked back down and castrated
>Stacy uses her looks and money to literally buy her way out of trouble
>the innocent virgin is the first to die while the degenerate whore lives and prospers
>having a conscience only gets you killed
>being a whiteknight doesn't pay off
>money can buy anything
>wealthy elites surreptitiously run the world
Pretty based for a horror flick.

>Sowell is basically ancap

Have the link of the century, every "/pol must read book" in epub and pdf form.

Your welcome boyz.

stop lying to me

Plus the untranslated Spanish. At least for me.

I may be wrong, but isn't the Sowell worship still kind of a magic nigger concession for Cred Forums? I like him but wouldn't any white man worth his salt leave him in the dust?

Interesting, I really like McCarthy's style, I probably read Blood Meridian and Road faster than any books before. Definitely a lot faster than The Fountainhead which I read this summer.

Shit forgot link:
mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg

>his is phd

Lmfao, I can't speak for lit but his is fucking horrible for discussion.

fuck I loved blood meridian. i always feel like so much goes over my head though. always loved mccarthy's lean style, he reminds me of a 20's era writer who adapted to modern life.

This

Fuck yeah!

>don't have storage to save it

fug

yes, maybe you're right, but I think because here we mix humour with intelligence.
yes, But you have to be aware if you have a leftist professor

The godfather of the regressive left, no thank you

Surely you would be able to quote some passages instead of signaling to us that you've internalized none of it and are unable to articulate what it says, because how you're describing it and what's actually written there are different. Go ahead, give us a quote, because I highly doubt you've actually read it.

no. Thomas Sowell is a smart man, full stop. His writings on economics rely on accessible data that give a clear picture, and most of his publications come with an intro describing how important contextualized statistics are.

There's no need to bring race into this, unless he discusses how lame duck black fathers tend to be, or other black problems. He is a brilliant american and his skin colour has never effected his ability to perform, unlike countless other blacks.

The 13th Floor
The Matrix
Battlefield Earth
What Dreams May Come
The Wizard of Oz

yeah, in some ways Marx was right, in that globalism was a threat that needed to be stopped. but his rejection of god threw away the value system that has made any good country good in the first place: religious rules and guidelines, the belief of something greater than ourselves. Marxism, when used by the average person, is based more on jealousy and self hate than actual concern for the working classes of the world. it's virtue signalling: the philosophy.

Chomsky couldn't debunk his way out of an issue of Mad Magazine.

...

I genuinely agree with this. He is a black that has integrated well into true American culture and put himself above others.

The leftist professors are where you get the most redpilled. Once you understand the composition of the blue pill you become immune.

Starship Troopers should be mandatory Cred Forums reading tbqh

Math major here. Every philosophy major I come across, I ask them the same question, "What is the most profound thing you've learned studying philosophy?" It's always the more you learn, the more you realize you don't actually know, or faith doesn't contradict reason, or some dumb shit like that. It just seems like a silly thing to study at University. Why not just do your own reading? What the heck is some liberal professor going to teach you about philosophy that you can't figure out on your own via life experience and books?

Bump link this really is important, over 1000 books for free^^^

You can just download the books you like individually. Recommend David Irving's books first.

Re the sham that was the Cold War:
Antony Sutton's trilogy Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1965
+Major Jordan's Diaries

Anything by E. Michael Jones to understand the influence of skypes on American society

Retard detected.

Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle
Politics - Aristotle
Livyan Discourses - Machiavelli
The Prince - Machiavelli
Beyond Good and Evil - Nietzsche
Genealogy of Morals - Nietzsche

If you want some shorter work, read these two
On Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense - Nietzsche
On the Use and Abuse of History - Nietzsche

They're under 50 pages together and contain extremely high level redpills.

I feel like it depends on the professor. my first philosophy professor was so savagely redpilled, it was the only part of school I looked forward to. he would shit on multiculturalism and Islam and it would short circuit all our bluepilled brains kek. had another professor who gave a fair and balanced history of postmodernism. not sure if he was left or right, but he was intelligent and didn't push agendas onto us. i think that's the hallmark of a good educator

Is that going to stay up for a while?

Why are you such a dumb faggot? Better yet, why the fuck are you on this board? Go back to rebbit, you industrial cockblower.

Forever, just bookmark the link.

Every Math major I've met has been dumb as bricks. Don't know what to tell you. Literally the math majors who had to do formal logic with us were all fedoralords who thought they knew everything and had the same attitude as you but when asked simple things about, for example, theory of mind in a philosophy of mind class would ramble on about dumb shit pertaining to mind-body dualism in one dumbass example. One particular math major sperglord couldn't even understand the concept of functionalism in phil of mind.

Never met a math major that wasn't literally a walking sterotype.

downloaded all these a while back, thanks based aussie cunt

Nice, thanks greatest shitoster!

He's voting Trump. Trump was just a candidate he didn't want.
I don't blame him. Sowell is a professor, who writes and publishes books and guests on shows all the time. Trump is eccentric at his best and a shit flinger at his worst (which is his best in my opinion), so it's common for the more ivory tower-dwelling fucks to think "mmm yes, how abhorrent for an individual to behave like that!

Also, Sowell's beef with him was over the way he mocked that disabled reporter, but the disabled reporter wasn't innocent in the situation. You can't be a reporter, fuck with someone, and then play victim when they yell at you, even if you look like you have super aids.

Nice, thanks greatest shitposter!

Cool, thanks anons. Probably will never read him though judging by the melanin and enlarged nose

NO Problem! Leaf.

Top-tier:

The Dhammapada
The Upanishads
The Bhagavat Geeta
The World as Will and Representation - Schopenhauer


Not top-tier but still worth understanding because the viewpoint it offers can be valuable in certain situations and its important to understand in contrast to other schools of thought:

East and West - Guenon
Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson - Gurdjieff
In Search of the Miraculous - Ouspensky
The Ego and its Own - Stirner
The Society of the Spectacle - Debord

Of course Plato et al should all be read but most of them don't have a single specific work that its super important to read over all their other ones.


1) Savitri Devi was a complete retard

2) If you are going to delve into Eastern Philosophy including through reading Evola it's important that you read some of the actual texts of eastern philosophy themselves and works by experts on them (such as Guenon), Evola was not an expert on eastern philosophy.

/his/ gets triggered by any single mention of race realism or anything not considered PC. It's the worst board on Cred Forums.

Thank you based Aboriginal

I really enjoyed Wandering on the Way

probably because most educated people know that race realism is junk. the truth of the disparity between the races is culture. even Cred Forumss beloved sowell acknowledges that.

Really? Every time I've gone there it's like Cred Forums but with less memes and more discussion

Pessimistic mother fucker. Went and made me sad.

>ad homn attack

Google what? Guy Gnome Chumpsky has a PhD in Linguistics but flaunts his opinion around like a fresh tranny from under the knife like it means something.

Thomas Sowell has a PhD in Economics and uses his expert opinion and theoretical knowledge of his field to craft a point that is not debatable.

Based on pure merit Sowell beats Chompsky every time because Sowell's field of expertise makes him a prime source of reference within the field that Econ students use as reference points in their 200 and 300 level classes as well as 400 level classes for economics.

Outside of Linguistics Gnome Chompsky is nothing more than a paper weight. You cannot be this deep in the cool aid seriously.

My comment prior to this one isn't an ad hom attack but more of a comparison of expertise and the fields they are commenting on. This fully shows that Sowell has a better reputation as well as a reputable source for the field.

Breaking it down Barney style. Gnome Chompsky has literally zero credibility next to Sowell. Chompsky is nothing more than ideological fap material that has little credibility and will exist only in the same realm as video games and fantasy tales. Thomas Sowell can actually exist and be a form able and viable usage of government and economic thought. You have to be atleast 18 to post here. If not where the fuck is your parental consent form?

Here's another based black man.

I've not read his books but I've watched him on YouTube.

>implying genetics plays no role in racial differences
>implying that those genetic differences can't be differences that effect intelligence
>implying the studies of sociology, history or philosophy is the authoritative body on race and not the studies of biology

Fuck those idiots. They are not 'educated'.

Pages 32-63 really opened my eyes.

>the truth of the disparity between the races is culture
You'd have to explain away the transracial adoption studies and comparisons within the same income brackets maintaining similar gaps in standardized tests/IQ scores for that to be true.

Because it's taboo to talk about it in the mainstream. You'd lose your career for talking about that shit.

Remember the Nobel prize winner who lost his job because he said women were emotional or some shit?

What's your stance on Ayn Rand? I'm not really into libertarianism, but I'd like to read Atlas Shrugged though. So far, I have seen people praising it like the greatest masterpiece of all time and others saying it's the biggest piece of shit - nothing inbetween.

Personally pages 14-88 were really eye opening on how to properly baking a yid.

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

Don't Sleep There are Snakes by Daniel Everett

Based indeed.

This book pretty good.

It was a good read but nothing I would take from ideologically. Treat it like a good fiction book.

I've only read the Fountainhead, and the writing is bad, the philosophy is interesting, but lacking in anything beyond self. To be quite honest it didn't warrant the 600 odd pages or so, it was very boring.

>The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

I fucking loved this book.

>socialist

You should try it sometime. Then your country might stop being total shit

The one singular lesson you need to take from this book is:

your house, if you have a mortgage, is a liability not an asset

He's the real deal.

What format are the books in?

There are a few aren't there?

Revolver

>unlike countless other blacks.

>implying your skin color has helped you to succeed

Google detected.

Brave New World is one of my favourite books of all time

You definitely do. The modern world resembles Brave New World to such an accurate degree, it's insanely scary.

The only area where our current world doesn't match up the book is genetic engineering. But that is becoming a reality. I watched this video the other day and the vision of genetic engineering they present is basically what Huxley anticipated (long video so here's the TLDR - we're soon going to be able to genetically engineer human babies, because a new technique for genetic engineering has just been found which is 1% the cost of the former technique): youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

So yeah. Huxley was much smarter than Orwell in my opinion. Orwell didn't realise that dictatorships are doomed to fail because they will always inspire / invite revolution. Huxley was smart enough to realise that the way to quell a population is not through force, but through indulgence.

Liberalism is a mental disorder- Michael savage

Sowell is a better presidential candidate than Trump. He's not anti-Trump, he just doesn't have Trump's cock in his mouth which I guess qualifies as anti-Trump where you are concerned.

Holy fuck it's a real book

Absolutely based

That's kind of ironic considering the US constitution is founded on liberal principles of freedom. Really makes yer neurons fire....

Almost every argument I've heard from Chomsky has been borderline retarded, and I'm not exactly a smart ass nigga.

it debunks reality?

From experience, the people who call it a big piece of shit get offended by what they perceive is her philosophy.

As for the book itself, Rand could write some stunningly descriptive and beautiful/ominous scenes, and she attempts to tie everything back to her philosophy. However, the dialog often reads as very wonky as she tries to imbue everything with her philosophy. The characters in the book often speak as a professor giving a lecture, which can really put one off.

>liberal principles of freedom
Is that why liberals are trying their hardest to ban "hate" speech?

Liberal ain't what it used to mean, the founding fathers would be considered filthy racists today.

but you haven't read it either

>canada
>not total shit

mad Nabisco detected
make another thread about niggers kid
the next one will be the one that makes you a winner in life

Brahhh, I'm having issues with downloading this. Do I need to sign up or anything?
Massive thanks by the way

I guess that's why your currency is called the loony, eh?

>make another thread about niggers kid

Why the fuck would i do that, you stupid subhuman? i couldnt care less about googles

Read Kevin MacDonald. It explains a lot.

obviously, otherwise the accounting equation would not be balanced

Has anyone here seen Children of Men, do you think its redpilled?

Redneck Manifesto mentioned above is worth mentioning again. I was turned off by the title at first (made it sound Jeff Foxworthy-esque), but it is a great overview of how poor whites became America's scapegoats. Goes into white indentured servitude in the US, which was basically the same as, if not worse than, slavery. Just a lot of great stuff that has been all but erased from the history books used in American schools.

>mfw my parents bought me that book when I was a kid
Thank you dad.

Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.

not an argument

...

Please give me more red pilled Jewish authors who understand that they cause their own hatred.

muhahaha chomp chomp been wrong so many times it's not even funny any more

Is The Reading Caboose redpilled?
youtu.be/wuLTprutrDU

does he use evidence or does he live in hypothetical fairyland like marx?

Chomsky is much less theoretical than Marx.

Noam Chomsky is a compulsive liar and an authoritarian fascist piece of shit pretending to be an anarchist.

Fuck him hope he dies soon

It stops making sense early on in the chapter.

most math majors are huge cucks. At best they live in some agnostic nether-region of philosophy since math is purely abstract and without emotional connotation.

tfw BS Applied Math major who studied math to figure out how impotent it is at explaining the world.

that didn't really answer my question.

Does he argue using anecdote? statistical evidence? or abstract frameworks?

Nobody wants to turn into Venezuela you absolute waste of life.

Go back to Toronto you piece of shit.

his style seems like platitudinal stream of consciousness.

things "should" be a way because it's "right" for the "community".

even worse than Marx. At least a theoretical framework has some scientific flavor to it.

Marxism is pure pseudoscience though
Even if he tries to be scientific

there are no good arguments that deunk marxism. it's a system of thinking that allows for predictions to be made and empirically tested. It's definitely not pseudo-science, any more so than any social science (such as economics) that is.

>deunk
debunk*

>it's a system of thinking that allows for predictions to be made and empirically tested
no bitch that's called science

marxism has all the characteristic of a religious philosophy.

there is "god" (proletariat) and a "devil" (burgeois). There is "good" (what benefits the proles) and "bad" (what benefits the capitalists) and an eternal struggle between the two.

It's like the man read genesis and decide to change the words to ones with economic connotations.

geenstijl.nl/archives/images/suicide_note.pdf

if you got the time to read the 1900 pages, you wont regret it.

you fundamentally misunderstand marxism

Marxism denies human genetics and biology and actually believes that all human behavior is the result of social/economic forces instead of human instincts.

Its the furthest thing from science. They basically don't even believe in evolution.

Also whenever their beliefs fail in the real world they never admit they were wrong.

Marxists are so incredibly dumb it's no wonder people want to throw them alive from helicopters.
They should all be gassed desu

I will leave to the high priests such as yourself to interpret the word.

If it was a real redpill it would be Intellectuals and Sub-species.

Marxism is based largely on a reversal of Hegelianism, so it's true to say Marxism has a religious basis. it's just worshiping the state, not god

Prove it then idiot.

Marxism is just a giant nonsense word salad. It's no wonder that people who get literature/arts degrees are the ones that support marxism. It's extremely rare you'll see people that get into STEM degrees supporting it.

Where's that picture from?

not to mention his linguistic writings are also shit

Steven pinker destroys him on a regular basis.

san fran freako... i read this book as it came out, live in bay area, get sent to the deans office

Lel I think the chomsky loving marxist stopped posting.

What did the Dean say?

A
FUCKING
LEAF

Get gassed faggot, you don't have a single argument and got btfo by virtually everyone in this thread lol

you spend enough time thinking about them kid. you're even on the "google" bandwagon.
you're a walking, breathing meme.
a proud specimen of the polcuck numale.
when you roll your doughy physique into bed tonight don't forget what you really are

All that you guys have posted are ad honimen attacks about noam and marx. You guys never read the noam book I posted and you guys don't understand marxism. how the HELL am I the one that got BTFO when you guys don't even know what is being discussed? You can't ref the game if you don't know the rules!

Not an argument

>ad honimen
Wrong.

If you had actually responded to us instead of whining telling us to drop everything and read an entire fucking book instead of actually have proper arguments against us, then maybe we could have gotten somewhere in this thread.

Respond to this post then:
You're a fraud, you've never read any marx or chomsky neither.

wow this is overwhelming idk where to begin so i aint downloading shiet lol

nice link though im sure someone will benefit from this

might just skim through crippled america first

"The World as Will and Representation" by Schopenhauer.
Totally blows the fuck out of Noam.

What is your response?

The fact that you believe modern marxism is still based around marx shows your ignorance. modern marxists realize that there is an innate human nature, however, we also realize that technological improvements will allow us to overcome those limits. go fuck yourself
no it doesn't

Black Sun, on Nazi mythos

Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth"

I suspect that you won't think any of us "understands" Marxism until we are in complete agreement with you, which is a trait we notice quite frequently in blue-pilled faggots like yourself.

We even have a meme for people like you in pic related.

>using a strawman image to back up your strawman argument
lord have mercy

Thomas Sowell is actually William F. Buckley in black face. I don't believe a google could be so articulate, and even if he is, he is the exception that doesn't prove the rule and who doesn't invalidate white nationalism.

>strawman fallacy

another hallmark of the liberal pseudointellectual.

you are hitting all the buttons tonight.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Comparisons_with_George_Orwell.27s_Nineteen_Eighty-Four

1984 and BNW are at pest predictive programming

and yeah sowell is based as fuck.
sowell is based, race aside the guy is up there with milton friedman

Someone at my school is doing a poll.
Help me out Cred Forums!!!!
strawpoll.me/11305362

That book is too redpilled for Cred Forums, OP.

Thanks dudes. Filled up an amazon order of $200. In dire need of new reading material.

This is a pretty strong philosophy textbook I used but had to return. Bought it for myself again.

>fundamentals of philosophy, 8th edition

why not just read the original texts family

>The fact that you believe modern marxism is still based around marx shows your ignorance
Top kek, we were talking about marxism in general not "modern marxism".

Also marxism is now fundamentally different because time has passed? Holy fuck what delusion.

>modern marxists realize that there is an innate human nature,
No they don't.
They still deny human nature in the same way old marxists did.

Human instincts can't exist in a world with economic/social determinism. You can't magically have both.


>we also realize that technological improvements will allow us to overcome those limits
LOL
>technology will turn everyone into a sterile cog for the communist revolution

Just fucking kill yourself, you people are so incredibly evil, you just need to die.

anybody got an epub of this guy's Basic Economics book?

need it for a commie friend

>Top kek, we were talking about marxism in general not "modern marxism".
What an idiotic statement. When people talk about physics they don't mean physics as of the 19th century, they mean physics with all its improvements. When people talk about marxism, they mean just the same. Well intellectually honest people do at least, maybe not you because you're a fucking leaf.
>They still deny human nature in the same way old marxists did.
Nope.
>Human instincts can't exist in a world with economic/social determinism. You can't magically have both.
Yes you can, and we do. Just because we have instincts doesn't mean we use our instincts to escape these social truths.
>technology will turn everyone into a sterile cog for the communist revolution
Once again proving your ignorance. Modern marxists, and even Marx himself towards the end of his life, do not believe in revolutions. We realize revoluting from capitalism to communism fails. Modern Marxism know realizes that communism will naturally arrive and that it's inevitable. It's inevitable because once tech advances enough it will become viable and highly desirable.

>need it for a commie friend
better to give him economics in one lesson

Library's cheap, user

...

True, but it is very streamlined and is a good for a large textbook of philosophy. That way when I'm interested in a particular area, the book will help guide me in who to look for and read for those specific topics. I do want to narrow on some more specifics, but starting with a strong foundation is very helpful for me to have before plunging into specific writings and meditations

I thoroughly enjoy owning books and hate feeling like I'm rushed to finish a book. I like getting many books at once, and choosing the order I read them in almost on impulse. And sometimes I'll plow through it very quickly, sometimes I'll read a little at a time, it all varies with me. I hate feeling constrained by needing to return books. I just want it to be mine, so I allow myself the occasional splurge

>What an idiotic statement.
Coming from the cuck that got BTFO by everyone in the thread. lol

>When people talk about physics they don't mean physics as of the 19th century, they mean physics with all its improvements. When people talk about marxism, they mean just the same.
Physics is different, it's a collaborative effort from many groups of people with different ideas and opinions.

Marxism is the word of one person from a few books. The books say what they say.

You would have to say that modern marxist don't believe in many things marx had said. Is this what you are saying?

Are you honestly telling me that modern marxists don't believe human behavior is economically and socially constructed? lol I thought that was one of the main theories of marxism?
top kek you wastes of life can never give a straight answer because you're always wrong

>Nope.
Explain why you think I'm wrong instead of giving one word answers you cuckhold.

>doesn't mean we use our instincts to escape these social truths.
LOL
WHAT "social truths".
You people are religious fundies.
Instincts don't "escape" anything, you 12 year old. They only describe how humans will behave.

>Modern Marxism know realizes that communism will naturally arrive and that it's inevitable.
But then why are you people so incredibly wrong all of the time?

>inevitable
How is it inevitable, poverty rates worldwide are declining and more and more people are becoming middle class.

What in the world would cause marxism to occur? lol

>It's inevitable because once tech advances enough it will become viable and highly desirable.
Why in the world would people want to give up their rights once technology advances? You make no sense.
The price of goods would reach zero. Why would we need marxism?

ya, good method. if you get into art, or already are, that's a great way to do it. i just feel philosophy in particular needs to be worked with at the text level. anyone getting between you and the word of the writer is potential for things to get diluted/agendas to be pushed

>marxist
Are you fucking retarded?

>What in the world would cause marxism to occur?
Marxism isn't something that "occurs", it's something that explains what is occurring. In my post I was referring to communism naturally occurring once technology advances to the point of post-scarcity. Once economizing is obsolete there will be no need for the state to allocate resources and a true stateless communist society will reign.
>Why in the world would people want to give up their rights once technology advances?
Because given a post-scarcity world there will be a viable alternative to the system of "rights" provided by the state. Instead of clinging to the state to oppress society and impose limits on production/allocation of output people will want to be in control of that themselves because they will be able to be in control of it. Right now complete self-sufficiency is inefficient and undesirable, in a post-scarcity world it is the exact opposite.

I think that's very true, and important to bear in mind. It's very easy for an author, and by extension a teacher potentially using that author, to distort a philosophers writings to fit their agenda or personal beliefs

Thankfully my only philosophy teacher was surprisingly objective and unbiased. But yeah I do want to get to more original works.

>He has been discredited time and time again on so many topics
No he hasn't.

i thought you were joking or something that one lesson to give to a commie is giving him a helicopter ride instead

>it's something that explains what is occurring
Then it's explaining it very poorly because communism is not occurring and will never occur.

>I was referring to communism naturally occurring once technology advances to the point of post-scarcity.
That would never happen either because resources would be literally free.

What need would you have for a communist society then?
Capitalism will have made resources free.

>Because given a post-scarcity world there will be a viable alternative to the system of "rights" provided by the state.
Says who?
Shit you made up?

>Instead of clinging to the state to oppress society and impose limits on production/allocation of output
Besides regulations and taxes, how does it do this already?

>people will want to be in control of that themselves
People already control it themselves.
and the people that really want to control it, will easily be able to because the cost of capital goods are either free or virtually free.

>Right now complete self-sufficiency is inefficient and undesirable

>inefficient
No shit.

>undesirable
People still desire it.

Man you make absolutely no sense.

Okay.
Anyway read that book, it's a much easier read to give to a recovering communist.

>no it doesn't
You clearly haven't read the book
You should at least read the book before you post again

...

none of what you said refuted my post as a whole. you refuted each individual statements out of context because you cannot refute the big picture. Everyone knows that as economic growth occurs output increases and people are able to have more goods and services for less money than they did in the past. Overtime, as economies continue to grow, all necessary items such as food and shelter will become accessible to everyone at an negligible price. This is what is known as post-scarcity.
>What need would you have for a communist society then?
It is the only society that is viable in a world of post-scarcity. Capitalism only functions off the idea of scarcity, once scarcity goes so does capitalism. Everything will be fundamentally different. One example I already gave you is that people will want to be self-sufficient and think of it as a viable alternative to our current system of relying on state oppression because it will become viable. No longer will people have to care about earning wages or satisfying customers, they'll just have to care about what they want to do. People may desire self-sufficiency now, just like people desire world peace now, but it is not viable for most people now. In post-scarcity communism it is.

>you refuted each individual statements out of context
What context? What the fuck are you talking about?

I literally refuting your post point by point and you're complaining about it instead of refuting me? lol

>big picture
What "big picture".

>as economic growth occurs output increases and people are able to have more goods and services for less money than they did in the past. Overtime, as economies continue to grow, all necessary items such as food and shelter will become accessible to everyone at an negligible price. This is what is known as post-scarcity.
Yes, no shit.
Why is communism needed? It's not.

>It is the only society that is viable in a world of post-scarcity.
Why?

>Capitalism only functions off the idea of scarcity, once scarcity goes so does capitalism.
Scarcity is a reality of life. If we ever get to the point where we are producing virtually infinite goods, they are still finite.
There will still need to be institutions that manage and control them like businesses.

>people will want to be self-sufficient
Maybe some of them will.
The vast majority of people will be totally fine not wasting their life trying to run one of these firms that has the responsibility to pump out virtually unlimited goods.
The people that do want to control some of these firms will easily be able to now that capital goods are basically free.

Why do we need communism and central control bullshit again?

>our current system of relying on state oppression
Yes, it's YOU people that want state oppression.
We're against that shit.

and nobody "relies" on state oppression for their resources.
What the fuck are you talking about?

>No longer will people have to care about earning wages or satisfying customers
They wouldn't have to do that ANYWAY because everything is fucking free.
Can you even read?

There's no reason for communism whatsoever.

Seriously marxists have bad genetics, they're so fucking stupid and evil, it's best to just kill them.

I DID read it. You were wrong about what it said. I challenged you to quote it. You refused, implicitly admitting defeat. You got BTFO

"White Girl Bleed A Lot" and "Don't Make The Black Kids Angry" by Colin Flaherty. These books document the staggering amount of black violence and criminality, and the efforts of the media to cover it up.

it seems like you're purposely misinterpreting my posts. I say one thing then you claim the opposite. I say something is what I believe then you say I believe the opposite. I even told you that you just "refute" each individual sentence and that it does not address the whole yet you just did it again. If there's any upside to nation states it's the fact that it has kept you on the other side of my border.

This one post highlights how you don't seem competent enough to argue:
>Why do we need communism and central control bullshit again?
communism = no central control. For you to say the EXACT OPPOSITE astounds me.

>it seems like you're purposely misinterpreting my posts
No I'm not. You just can't refute what I'm saying.


>I say one thing then you claim the opposite. I say something is what I believe then you say I believe the opposite. I even told you that you just "refute" each individual sentence and that it does not address the whole yet you just did it again. If there's any upside to nation states it's the fact that it has kept you on the other side of my border.
Why do marxists do this all of the time.
Literally half my post was asking you to explain your reasoning and you refuse to do so.

This entire thread was basically you NOT having an argument.
That's why everyone was making fun of you. You're completely useless as a person.

Reply to what I said in my post or go back to your parents basement. Pretty sure you're an unemployed loser.

>communism = no central control.
In theory maybe, not in practice-
Also you know what, yes in theory too because marx wanted a socialist state(central control) in which he thought would wither away to a communist society. It's idiotic.

Marx himself also called for a workers revolution.
You are not a marxist, you don't believe in half of what he said.

>I even told you that you just "refute" each individual sentence and that it does not address the whole yet you just did it again.
When I went point by fucking point debunking your idiotic I did it in context with your entire post.
You're just lying.

What was the "big picture" point you were trying to make?
Explain it.
Oh wait you can't because you have nothing.

source?

Camp of the Saints

Basically if Cred Forums wrote a work of fiction in the 70s, this would be it

...

Marshall Macluhan - Understanding Media

>What was the "big picture" point you were trying to make?
My big picture = technological advancement will inevitably lead to a stateless communist society.
You never argued against this big picture, you only argued against the little statements making it up.
There is no reason to believe post-scarcity is impossible because technological advancement is necessary in capitalist societies. Once we reach a point where capital accumulation is no longer the key to success capitalism will no longer be used. Capitalism is naturally going to turn into socialism which will naturally turn into communism just like how slave societies turned into feudalism and feudalism turned into capitalism.

kek, my mom owns literally this exact print

At this point, i think the marxist here is a lost cause. I'm now convinced the leaf is just bullying a Marxist downie, rather than talking to someone who is merely stupid.

Come on, if he was able to articulate his point intelligently and explain what he was saying, he would have done so by now. That he thinks his responses constitute such an effort is evidence of severe mental issues.

Come on, leaf. You're going to get an aneurysm before long because you can't fix something THIS broken. You can't explain reality to a Marxist who lacks any sort of sense for reality or logic. Just call him a faggot and let him go.

This has happened plenty of times on plenty of boards. Just accept that Cred Forums is a place to see people vastly stupider than yourself, and derive relief from that.

If you read this and think it's not intelligently explained then you must just be unable to understand it due to your own limitations. Tell me what you don't understand instead of just dismissing me so I can adjust my terminology for you.

>My big picture = technological advancement will inevitably lead to a stateless communist society.
YES
I knew that was your argument the entire time and I refuted you point by point explaining why this isn't possible and there is no reason for it.

Do you have anything to refute what I said?

You skipped over where I debunked your entire premise. Do you want me to repeat myself?

>You never argued against this big picture
Yes I did lol plenty of times.

Why is it needed if everything is free and owning the means of production is incredibly easy?
Why?

WHY?

EXPLAIN YOURSELF

>Once we reach a point where capital accumulation is no longer the key to success capitalism will no longer be used.
You base this on what exactly?

Capital would still exist in this society. Why would we suddenly switch systems when this system was working so well for us?

>Capitalism is naturally going to turn into socialism
There's no evidence of this whatsoever and there's massive evidence that it's turning away from socialism.

>just like how slave societies turned into feudalism and feudalism turned into capitalism.
Marx's story of social change has long been debunked. It's a false equivalency to compare modern capitalism to feudalism.

>Come on, leaf. You're going to get an aneurysm before long because you can't fix something THIS broken. You can't explain reality to a Marxist who lacks any sort of sense for reality or logic. Just call him a faggot and let him go.
>This has happened plenty of times on plenty of boards. Just accept that Cred Forums is a place to see people vastly stupider than yourself, and derive relief from that.
I really wish I could, but I have OCD and shit like this drives me up the wall. I want to see if there's a breaking point where I can get him to admit he's wrong and has no way out.

Sorry, I meant "special needs." That must have offended you. I'm sure once the state is dissolved you can come and unleash your tard rage on me to release your stress.

I suggest you read the entire library of works of Sowell, Mises, Rothbard, and Voltaire before you post in this thread again, because telling people to read a book instead of giving them intelligent explanations is the hallmark of skillful debate.

Excuse me madam. Yes you, the one in charge of administering this child from behind his shoulder. This isn't an appropriate site for someone of his mental maturity. Please escorts him to the playpen.

You're wrong

when has capitalism turned into socialism and been successful?

you made me wet

This has a little redpilling about jews in spain.

you have to go back

book is absolute dogshit m8. Occurs in some ubermenschean void where no one is poor and no one has children? Rand's prose is mediocre at best and merits far less attention than any of her ideology.

>You skipped over where I debunked your entire premise. Do you want me to repeat myself?
Go ahead. Make it a coherent post instead of short little sentences addressing a small portion of the big picture. Tell me why post-scarcity is impossible, and define what you mean by post-scarcity.

...

Even though this film was supposed to be about white and black race relations, it's was just another excuse to remind everyone of how oppressed Jews are.

I respect Noam Chomsky, immensely, especially for his exposes on power relations and foreign policy.

I also respect him for his contributions to linguistics, but don't have the faculties or knowledge to understand them fully.

Admittedly, of his books, I've only read Manufacturing Consent, Understanding Power, and Deterring Democracy. I've also read extensively from his site, and watched scores of his speeches and interviews.

That said, it perplexes me how his arguments can be so bad.

Just use google (or whatever search engine that has an operator that can search by domain) to look up
>free trade
>free market
>laissez faire
>neo-classical
>neo-liberal
>externalities
>market failure
>X site:Chomsky.info

His arguments amount to:

>Externalities exist
>Checkmate, Capitalism

>Non-rivalrous, non-excludable goods exist
>Checkmate, Capitalism

>Enclosures of the Commons was a state-backed coercive initiative, as were similar happenstances globally and throughout history
>Checkmate, Capitalism

>Public spending (e.g. military or NASA) did some good work here, especially in R&D
>Checkmate, Capitalism

>"Free trade agreements" are in large part investor-protection deals, and if the early US followed Adam Smith's early advice to cease manufacturing and go with agriculture citing what we now know as comparative advantage, it would have stunted the US and the world, never mind the confounding variables of the US' industrial capacity not being met for comparison, or the Crown actively and coercively stamping out competition
>Checkmate, Capitalism

>Adam Smith proposed various government interventions and regulations, and was against wealth inequality
>Checkmate, Capitalism

>Volatility increased with the end of Bretton Woods and regulations on monetary trading; volatility exists at all
>Checkmate, Capitalism

He would have been eviscerated in a simple conversation with Friedman.

>Make it a coherent post
I just did. Countless times.
Why do I have to repeat myself now due to your laziness and incompetence?

Why would we need to switch to communism if we had post-scarcity?

What makes this necessary?

Why would people willingly do this?

What about the people who are against it?

My god you are one stupid piece of shit.

> short little sentences addressing a small portion of the big picture
HOLY FUCK
Do you not know how to argue. I did BOTH address the big picture and I also went point by point debunking your inconsistencies.

You're just complaining that I debunked you

It doesn't matter that I broke your argument down

That's how you fucking get to the core of someone's argument, by addressing and discussing the fine details which make up your "big picture."

>Tell me why post-scarcity is impossible
It's not.
I told you I supported it, countless times.
I don't support communism or socialism.

>and define what you mean by post-scarcity.
Your OWN WORDS explain it well. We were ALREADY on the same page about this 30 fucking minutes ago. Why are you going backward?

>Everyone knows that as economic growth occurs output increases and people are able to have more goods and services for less money than they did in the past. Overtime, as economies continue to grow, all necessary items such as food and shelter will become accessible to everyone at an negligible price. This is what is known as post-scarcity.

WHY ARE MARXISTS THIS FUCKING RETARDED?

>I told you I supported it, counteless times
>I knew that was your argument the entire time and I refuted you point by point explaining why this isn't possible and there is no reason for it.
you're obviously trolling now. I'm not going to let that one slide. goodbye

Bro, Chomsky's linguistics were mostly retarded too.

Stephen Pinker destroys him.

Oh, forgot my favorite argument:

>Cronyism is built in to the Capitalism because it rewards those who have the means and opportunity to increase their wealth. It's a feature not a flaw.

>So let's thwart private power, and increase public power from which said cronyists derive theirs.

As for search terms, you can also try:
>Capitalism site:chomsky.info
>property site:chomsky.info
>regulations site:chomsky.info
>public funding site:chomsky.info
etc

I know of the Pinker/Chomsky debate, but not the technicalities of it.

>>I knew that was your argument the entire time
Yes yes I did.
Like probably over an hour ago.
I'm pretty sure everyone else in the thread knew this was your argument.
You've yet to explain your reasoning.

>you're obviously trolling now.

>I lost the debate by outright ignoring your arguments
>THAT MEAN'S YOU'RE TROLLING
LOL
and you couldn't even respond to the questions in the beginning of my post.
You compulsive liar.
Sad!

>goodbye
Good, leave after dozens of people destroyed you naive worldview and you couldn't refute it whatsoever.
I have never seen someone get more btfo than you, god damn

watch some youtube videos.

Pinker is also really cool with Thomas Sowell and takes influence from him.

Pinker also said something like "if we find out that there are race differences in intelligence we should explore them without controversy."

Based Motherfucker

He's also an [s4s] mascot.

ass

>Not Rousseau
I think Focault might be a father, Rosseau a grandfather, and Paine a great grand father, though.

It's funny that chomsky says this shit while also claiming to be an "anarchist".

Absolute retard.

You faggots sound like the kids in the bar in Good Will Hunting.

Okay Mr. Cuckstein, As I am probably one of the few in this thread to have actually read Basic Economics, please tell me how and why Noam Cucky's book debunks Sowells and I will use Sowell's arguments against yours. Lets see how this plays out, you leftist faggot

>Lets see how this plays out, you leftist faggot
I've been trying to debate with him for over an hour and it's completely useless.

He's one of the lost ones. Any other normal sane person would have become right wing after questioning their own leftist belief system and reading counter arguments.

He's a true believer that will never question his batshit ideas.

give him a few days to digest

1. there are 2 methods of economizing today: market economy and a command economy
2. both of those methods rely on scarcity
3. post-scarcity is inevitable
4. there is no need to economize without scarcity
5. by "no need" I mean the point of a market and command economy become obsolete
6. people will be able to be self-sufficient without a market or a command economy
7. this means a state is not viable because the state is primarily used as a method of solving economic problems
8. therefore you have a stateless society

you can read up on this as well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy

In fairness, one of the smarter Marxists from Marxists.org, LibCom, or /leftypol/ could have provided better argumentation.

Reading through Marx (specifically , trudging through the volumes of capital, with heavy reliance on supplementary material) as well as works of anarchist and Marxian economists (like Greaber and Shaikh) as well as works of anarchists like Baku in, Proudohn, and Spooner opened me up to the metaphysics of economics.

What is property? Under what authority can property be maintained? Under the rules even propertarians, if all property came in some degree from theft somewhere between its first users and today, is ownership valid? Even if aarguing that property rights, specifically self-ownership, can be derived from first principles, what logical mechanism governs the attaining of something outside the body and maintaining exclusivity - by force- over it?
>Your brain, in you. Understandable
>Your hands, on you and part of you, Understandable.
>Filling in your mouth? Although foreign, necessary to your survival, in you and now part of you, understandable.
>Walking cane? More or less attatched during entire waking life, and medical necessity. Understandable.
>Tooth brush? Generally assumed to have exclusive use, common place enough to have exclusive use, common use is to the detriment of most, needed for health. Understanable.
>Medicine?
>Intellectual property?
>Tree on a mountain where you are the sole resident?
>Tracts of land?
>The means of production?
It's a slippery slope.

If the "you" of now is a different "you" that agreed to buy the property, is new "you" still a valid owner, philosophically, or do you have re-earn ownership?

What is "value"? Is value price? Is value instrisic or extrinsic? Is it measurable- always, sometimes, never, perfectly, imperfectly?

What is capital? Is all wealth capital? Is wealth not being used capital? Is a machine owned by no one and produces widgets all by itself

That increases wealth and standard of living for all its users capital? Is the sun capital?

What is labor? Is the actions of a man who hits a hammer on to a nail labor? Is it only labor of the nail is going on to something useful? Is it labor if he randomly smashed heads and cars with said hammer? Is it labor if a robotic arm does the same thing?

Etc. Its a similar experience when an ancap deconstructs a state

>What is coercion? What is agression? What is a state? Why can a state do that a private firm can't?

Noam Chomsky wears pants on his head.