ITT: Things which divide Cred Forums

>au·thor·i·tar·i·an
>əˌTHôrəˈterēən/
>adjective
>1.favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

You're free to leave, private businesses aren't oppressing you, if you have any suggestion as to how things should be you're welcome to suggest it, you might get promoted if it goes well, or you can always make your own business and choose by yourself as you do not own the guys business. Or even, when you get hired you can negotiate to buy into the business so you can also have a say (and share the risks) along the current owner.

And there is no thing as a capitalist business, capitalism describes an economic system, not the way to run one business.

>You're free to leave, private businesses aren't oppressing you
Governments around the world are corporate. Any bill that stands in a corporation's way, will be watered down and governments can't fight. Corporations have the governments in their back pockets.

Holy kek

How do you mean governments are corporate? And if the government can't pass or enforce its laws then it's a failure of government or politicians, not of an economic system, also capitalism describes an economic system, not a political one.

But I agree corporations shouldn't exist, the owners should have the legal responsibility for their companies, corporations are a government creation of a fictious legal entity, therefore not the free market.

Not an argument.

You're free to leave under the direct threat of having no means to pay for your health care. Now that's freedom.

Capitalism. I have heard that word before. What does it mean? Is it the same as orthodox marxism, or something else?

How is that a threat? Does nature threaten you by not leaving food, medicine and clean water at your side when you wake up? How is the owner responsible for your life?

>cap·i·tal·ism
>ˈkapədlˌizəm/
>noun
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Definition is right in so far that the political is laissez-faire, if it goes beyond then you're not dealing with capitalism, but might as well remove political from the definition.

What is your point with the definition?

>you're free to leave
Being "free" to leave somewhere doesn't make it not authoritarian, just avoidable/escapable. And that only if you have the means to do so.

>choose by yourself, buy into the business
yes, this is what I think the spaniard was alluding to with social democracy. I would call it economic democracy. Cooperative business.

Laissez-faire hasn't been around since the end of WW2 iirc. I'm talking about corporatism. A system in which corporations control government. I've heard people call it fascism.

Jews desu

some of us are unironically Philosemites and Zionists

Having personal freedom makes it not authoritarian, if you're free to leave the business because you're an employee it's not authoritarian, if you're not free to leave the plantation because you're a slave, that is authoritarian.
Capitalism allows for cooperative businesses, anyone of you could start one today and live by what you preach. But what the Spaniard might be alluding for is forced redistribution of wealth. Capitalist let socialists make their own choices but socialists won't let capitalism set up their businesses, that is authoritarian.

Corporatism or corporativism is a system under which society is managed by many corpus, agriculture is managed by a farmer's corpus, healthcare is managed by a doctor's corpus and so on, you see it often in sci-fi stuff. It is not a system in which corporations control government, that's called corruption, when politicians answer to other people than their constituents. Fascism is when the government is in semi control of businesses, along with other social stuff.

One should note the difference between israeli Jews and Soros type Jews, one wants death to the west, the other wants to live by the principles Cred Forums preaches, community and nationalism. Marx summed it well, he said there's the Sabbath Jews who is religious and the worldly Jew who worships money.

Yeah. I know wikipedia. It's also
corporatism
ˈkɔːpərətJzəm/Submit
noun
the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
"fascism was the high point of corporatism"

Regardless of the sedition if you have government officials but they aren't doing their job because they're crooks, they are to blame, under any political or economic system, not the system itself.

>Cover the basic needs of the people: health, education, pensions.

who the fuck are you to tell me what my basic needs are you communist faggot?

The reason I think Hillary will win the presidency, despite Trumps massive support, is that she's backed by corporations and wall street. They call the shots. They want Trump in, then Trump's their man. But it's Hillary. Hillary is their girl. She's gonna win because of corporatism.

>Does nature threaten you by not leaving food
Yes, that's why evolved species create laws to counter the unfairness of nature.

Oh I'm sorry you Croatian god who needs no health to live.
>communist faggot
No.

It's The Mason Dixon Line
Dixie is slang for the entirety of the south.

The legalization/decriminalization/consumption of Cannabis
It seems like half of the board supports it, while the other half thinks it's degenerate.

What sort of laws?

And the hrvat is right, who are you or any bureaucrat to decide what others need? Or even to decide what are basic needs? And how do you plan to provide them? If you believe everyone should have healthcare food and so on, go on and provide them for others, capitalism allows you to set up charities or cooperative businesses.

>who are you to decide what others need?
An individual who can cast a vote in hopes that many more like me will do so in the same way. If the majority of us chooses so, we are entitled to our choice.
>what are basic needs?
The minimum necessities in order to live in decency.
>how do you plan to provide them?
Taxes.
>capitalism allows you to set up charities
I believe everbody should contribute to social wellbeing. There are powerful and greedy people who will never help, and they have to aswell since their wealth stems directly and indirectly from all of society's efforts.

>that text in the picture
The right to have a national health service does not imply the enslavement of physicians. But you knew that already.

Are you against people like Soros? Why?

This is not as fun as it sounds. Free everything makes people lazier. Ironic but I'm a living proof of it. I'm writing on Cred Forums 1:30 AM and can't give a fuck about my future because the state has paid and will pay for everything, no matter how badly I keep fucking up my life. Humans are naturally lazy but everybody will cease being lazy the moment one absolutely has to do things.

It just makes you feel shit when you are too weak to fight against your biology. One part of brain ''relax, you're comfy, got shelter, tummy full of food, now is not the time to go hunting'' and the other part is going ''why are you piece of shit not studying?''. Humans are biological creatures that do not want to do boring work that requires energy if they do not have to.

It's an abstract kind of hell. Don't do it.

>An individual who can cast a vote in hopes that many more like me will do so in the same way. If the majority of us chooses so, we are entitled to our choice.
Ttyrany of the majority, and yes you are entitled to your own choices about your own life, not the life of others
>The minimum necessities in order to live in decency.
Define minimum, define necessity, define decency.
>Taxes.
So with other people's money.
>I believe everbody should contribute to social wellbeing. There are powerful and greedy people who will never help, and they have to aswell since their wealth stems directly and indirectly from all of society's efforts.
So you believe people should be forced to pay for other people's lifestyles and decisions?
>The right to have a national health service does not imply the enslavement of physicians. But you knew that already.
Actually yes, what if none of the doctors want to provide healthcare, who's going to do it then, if you are entitled to healthcare it means you are entitled to someone else's work regardless of their consent.

I'm a quebecer, we didn't keep our language and culture by letting hordes of unassimilated immigrants come here, and we do believe in assimilation if immigrants want to work they have to learn our language and our ways, Soros isn't for that. Also I don't want my taxes to pay for "refugees" who were living fine in UN camps.

Homosex

Capitalism is decent.
Syndicalism, Libertarianism, or Third Position are all better I'd say.