Let me just say that the industrial revolution is the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind and showed that libertarianism works and the true power of the free market.
Ted Kasicskinki is a liar and an idiot.
The liberal mainstream narrative is lying to you in many ways. First off, they fill our history books with false knowledge about how bad child labor was during the industrial revolution.
First of all this is not true. Child labor became virtually extinct as soon as the revolution happened. It was a myth peddled by hysterical liberal moralists.
It was not public outcry or governmental leglislation that reduced child labor. These laws were passed decades after child labor had been abolished through market production alone.
The industrial revolution singlehandedly resulted in a reduction in child labor from 100% to 18% and kept falling afterward. Before the IR, children had to work or their families would starve to death. This is imperically proven.
By the mid to late 1800s which created the industrial revolution a massive increase in living standards for workers everywhere. It was true free market libertarianism in action. Yet liberals deny this and act like conditions were so terrible for workers. This is false. There is data that outright disproves it.
 |
 Anus Alien Shirt $21.68 |
|
Government intervention only meant more starving children, meanwhile the Wild West was one of the greatest places on earth, particularly once mining resources begun and Manifest Destiny enacted.
I just think its funny how villified this all is. If the government is controlled for the benefit of special interests then it's not a free market by defintion. We were a free market for a brief period, yet the American government had to ruin everything. The problems people associate with the industrial revolution were actually that of the government.
Frankly, Libertarians are the only ones who understand basic and advanced economics and history to actually see the truth on this topic. People who debate with them constantly get btfo.
Yes, driver's licenses shouldn't exist, roads should be privatized, the government should be abolished, taxation doesn't actually work in funding the government and is morally wrong, unions are evil, no real socialist revolt of workers can ever happen because it will be rightly squashed by society. U mad?
Markets and courts existed before the first states, so government is irrelevant. Ancapistan existed before and will exist again.
Go on and keep sucking the mainstream teat. The facts and logic are on my side.
Why do you all orgasm when you hear "free market"?
Whenever there is freedom, there is inequality. Whenever there is inequality there is no equality of chances.
You libertarians just support your own selfish goals because you had opportunities.
That poor kid that has talent but shit-ass parents or none at all? Let him die.
Don't even bring up the social net the community will create, it will be a meager one.
>Whenever there is freedom, there is inequality
Whenever there is life there is inequality you dumbfrick.
Congratulations on not frick all about the current system.
Do you know why there exists a state and why is it so involved in welfare and why the notion of "welfare state" popped up? No, you dont.
You go for libertarianism but you dont know the basis.
The role of the state, in our current world, is to guarantee our fundamental rights. This is the sole purpose of existence for the state and society itself.
Equality of chances is also a fundamental right, thats why the state is involved in welfare. The state does it by creating a social net for people to bounce up if something goes bad.
Now you can go back to jerking off to libertarianism.
> the role of the mafia is to protect businesses from vandalism
>thinking the state is the same as the mafia
I guess the state can just fricking kill you off on a whim if you insult them. Thats must be why the capital punishment has been outlawed in the MAJORITY of the western world.
Imagine being so dense that you think that.
Now that we are on the subject of the mafia. Do you know how it appeared? It appeared in Sicily due to a power vacuum. The agricultural lands had to be protected agaisnt thiefs and arsonists but there was no police.
Guess what happened next. Right, they hired guys. then the guys realized they could do whatever they want with no consequence because there was no supreme authority. You know what happened next? Organized crime which lead to outstanding amounts of corruption and crime and destroyed whatever bright future Sicily had.
Go back to jerking off to libertarianism.
> capital punishment
That hasn't stopped the state from punishing those who rat on their members criminal conduct, which forces the snitch into exile or to face incarceration without due process.
> appeared due to a power vacuum
Describes the states of the new world. Simply to control the resources and monopoly on violence, devoid of any other authority. This fact, the ability to control resources and violence, better explains the state's existence than does "they exist to protecting our rights", which is as incidental to the state's role as the mafia is to a protection racket, or a conqueror's role is to a tributary.
>This fact, the ability to control resources and violence, better explains the state's existence than does "they exist to protecting our rights", which is as incidental to the state's role as the mafia is to a protection racket, or a conqueror's role is to a tributary.
And? You do realize that you cannot comprehend the simple fact that whenever there is no authority. there will be created one.
In all cases this happens.
And the sole existence of the state is to protect our rights and guarantee them. That is why there exists a set of rules, the Constitution, which is the fundamental law that guides all others.
The government works by relying on the people, if the people are unhappy then there will be a protest. then a riot, then a revolution. Do you think a protest could happen with a mafia? No, it couldnt happen, and that is because the sole existence of the mafia is to protect their own interests, not to safe guard others. That is another reason for mandates, something that wouldnt a person to consolidate his power to the extreme where he could impose a tiranny.
And lastly, dont compare the mafia to the state, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Also, I have read the book from which you get your comparations from. It is a good book and it showcases parts of the state that is similar with a mafia, like using force and having a monopoly on it, but the underlying aspect that separates them is the purpose of existence (just like I said previously in this post).
Who said I was for libertaniarism? Take your meds please
Wild West wasn't some libertarian paradise.
You know WHY the government interevened in your "free market"?
Because people who had a lot of money bribed them to.
You know where they got that money? From playing the free fricking market.
Capitalism demands total control from the capital class. Those in power will ALWAYS seek to protect their assets and control those assets they do not directly own. The Rich will always seek to become richer and the poor will always be exploited, because a free market relies on wealth as a qualification of worth and power.
If you reset the American experiment to 1776, removed everything but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, do you know what the result would be? The same exact situation we are now in.
A free market suffers from the same problem as a "libertarian" state, those with the most resources are incentivized to centralize and control as much power as possible. This will always happen because IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO WANT TO CONSOLIDATE AND AQUIRE AS MANY RESOURCES/POWER/WEALTH AS POSSIBLE.
>the government was bribed to do these things
Yeah that's his point. Frick the government. It's a tool that doesn't work in a free market for the reason you just described.
Ok, so what happens in your glorious stateless society when someone decides to set up as a warlord and kill you and take your resources? What if I play the free market successfully and instead of bribing senators I bribe an army of mercenaries to build me a kingdom with you as my McSlave?
The neo-feudalist creed
Child labor is a good thing, medieval peasants would have their children work in the fields.
Correct and these peasants had far worse lives than anyone during the post-IR era.
"Oh boo hoo I have to work 80 hours a week 50 weeks a year". That was nothing compared to medieval peasants.
I'd rather work with my dad on the farm or in the family business than get my 10 year old fingers chopped off at a 19th century factory tbh
>mid to late 1800s which created the industrial revolution
Libertardians suck and government regulation protect us from exploitation and monopolies (microsoft almost, remember that) in a way that the free market would not
>Libertardians suck and government regulation protect us from exploitation and
>corporation pays off judge to rule that said corporation is in fact not a monopoly
>corporation pays off Congress to change environmental standards so they don't get in trouble for burying toxic waste under the city park
Simple as.
One, monopolies aren't always bad.
Two, Microsoft was never in any danger of becoming a monopoly. - not even close. That's just what the liberal media wants you to think. (Nor is Google or Amazon or Apple). Microsoft succeeded because their competitors sucked, same with google and amazon and apple. No foul play or shady practices. Having most of the market share because people like your product the most doesn't make you a monopoly. They dominated because they were simply good. Breaking up these companies would just hurt consumers in major ways and devastate the economy. That's actually something commonly seen in history, if you cared to study it at all. Most anti-trust laws are just outright theft and hurt the economy.
Also, your point about corrupt government changing environment laws further proves my point of how the government is useless and should be abolished and private owners should have reign over their land to protect it since corrupt bueracrats cannot. Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.Individual rights for land will supersede ineffectual governmental regulation, simple as.
You talk about the free market like we are in the 18-19th century.
You do realize our world is so complex right now there is very little chance for someone to make it big?
Why is that? Because you need many resources to prop up your business.
Niches in the market? The incredible vast majority of them were taken and exploited by now.
Work hard and smart? When you can barely pay rent or afford food due to horrendous wages?
Learn programming? When you dont have the energy and time to do it because you need to put stale bread on the table?
Being poor and having no opportunities creates a loop where a person is just kept at a level.
Dont mention rich millionaires or billionaires that are self-made when they are more of the exception than the norm. Most of them either earned it through a niche/"Wild West" of a sector or because they just accumulated more through their parents.
>Monopolies aren't always bad
But they usually are lol
>Breaking up these companies would just hurt consumers in major ways and devastate the economy.
Good. Let it. If you’re insistent that big corporations will always reign supreme and that small businesses will fade away (as they exponentially are during this time), then the US as it is now is simply not worth living in. In many countries in Europe, wage slavery and living as a neo-serf to big corporations isn’t a thing; why should it be here? Frick it — break them all up.
>In many countries in Europe, wage slavery and living as a neo-serf to big corporations isn’t a thing; why should it be here? Frick it — break them all up.
The way mutts dream about Europe is so cute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
what, this was a squabble over "webnet" browsers and by the time it was decided the internet had blown up and it was all irrelevant
Ted Kaczynski was right about many things, particularly modern neuroticism. Regardless we should press on with materialist progress anyway. The antinatalism, gnosticism, anti-western sentiments, luddites and various misanthropists you see on LULZ all come straight from r*ddit. They don't have actual reasons for their beliefs, they just seem to want to be edgy or blow off steam, it is kind of like "REE FRICKING NORMIES" I guess, except unlike IQfy they have no justification.
empirically*
>Child labor became virtually extinct as soon as the revolution happened.
"the Factory Act (1833) and the Mines Act (1842). The Factory Act prohibited the employment of children younger than nine years of age and limited the hours that children between nine and 13 could work. The Mines Act raised the starting age of colliery workers to 10 years. In effect, these two Acts brought the industrial districts into line with the rest of the country and brought an end to the systematic employment of young children."
The IR had already been a thing for a good 70-80 years beofre those acts were passed and the "revolution" was practically over by then
Except that before the revolution and for all of human history, child labor rates were nearly at 100%.
By the 1800s, they were at closer to the 40% mark.
Ineffectual and poorly enforced laws had nothing to do with it.
>By the 1800s, they were at closer to the 40% mark.
40% isn't "virtually extinct" tho is it?
Closer to 20% by 1900 and 10% by 1920.
Yes, these things take time. Its not instantaneous.
Fact is, Child labor was virtually abolished by the time congress passed child labor laws in the 20th century and even then they didn't actually get enforced. I'm talking about 1916: Keating–Owen Act and 1924: proposed constitution amendment to regulate the labor of persons under eighteen years of age. Neither ever made it to fruition and were therefore irrelevant.
>Fact is, Child labor was virtually abolished by the time congress
Protip the IR was a thing long before it reached the USA
>but you didn't achieve 100% perfection
Splitting hairs. OP is basically right. Capitalism dragged the economy from one that was basically medieval to one where there was a sizable middle class.
Turns out if you allow people to keep a small surplus and reinvest it in their work they are far better off than if the government takes everything and spends it for them, who could have possibly seen that coming? Apparently this is a mystery to many, they can only imagine taking that surplus and spending it for them according to their own intellectual brilliance.
I know I'm right.
>Which structures the market and establishes rules so that it functions
except it doesn't
>In effect, these two Acts brought the industrial districts into line with the rest of the country and brought an end to the systematic employment of young children.
Also they didn't even do that because child labor continued into the early 1900s, so you literally disproved your own arguement. The fact is the largest reduction in child labor EVER came with the onset of the revolution itself - NOT government regulations or decrees. Any laws passed had little effect and it was the free market that eventually caused the phasing out of child labor.
>Also they didn't even do that because child labor continued into the early 1900s, so you literally disproved your own arguement.
How can I disprove my own argument when my argument was child labour continued, you've only reinforced my argument with your own words you spastic lmao
It takes time you idiot. By your own logic, leglislation didn't solve the child labor issue. It simply was mediated with the passage of time.
>Any laws passed had little effect and it was the free market that eventually caused the phasing out of child labor.
lol
And now that i've done a number on OP i'm going to bed
seethe and cope
facts don't care about your feelings
Let me reumerate in case you can't wrap your pea brain around it...
The industrial revolution resulted in a reduction in child labor from 100% to 18% and kept falling afterward.
Before the IR, children had to work or their families would starve to death.
the industrial revolution was a decades long process, it didn't happen overnight. Of course children worked in factories at the start of it.
It was a step up from working in fields and starving to death half the time. I think child labor is horrible. I think it's horrible. That's why I support free markets so child labor is decreased as much as possible. Government cannot magically make child labor go away, when it tries to do this, children starve. The industrial revolution and capitalism are the sole reasons child labor no longer exists today, not causation for it.
Sorry you can't just deviate your idiot from what you were force fed in public schools. Sorry you you can't do your own basic research on topics. My beliefs are radically different from the mainstream narrative, yet they are supported facts. You are NPC sheeple believing lies. I read books by people who have actually looked into the data. it all supports my side.
Your side is all stories and anecdotes and "muh fee fees", mine is the raw data. The things I'm saying is based on the data and yours simply isn't. You cannot factually prove any of what you're saying. It's literally true. People barely had any clothing, food or shelter and worked themselves to the bone.
I was reading stories of families in france had to literally go into hibernation in the winter to conserve energy. Medieval peasants worked constantly and had little downtime and often starved.
>seethe and cope
>wall of text
lmao
good response brainlets
>The industrial revolution and capitalism are the sole reasons child labor no longer exists today, not causation for it.
What about megacorps like Nike, iPhone, etc. who run factories in the global south?
Explain that
Ok. Look buddy. They only get their power due to the government and central banks. They would be much smaller and benefit us a lot more if the government wasn't giving them special power to bring back barbaric traditions. The government is as culpable as they are.
This goes for this idiot too
It's the government and the central banking. Don't you get it? Letting the free market work it's magic rids us from all that interference and moral corruption. Politicians are corrupting these people, not the other way around.
Here we see the common libertarian tactic of splitting the capitalist economic system into two halves
>the free market
Where profits and innovation exist and
>Corrupt government and central banking
Which structures the market and establishes rules so that it functions
Would it not be simple, dear reader, to simply keep the profits and innovation without having to worry about the burden of infrastructure and architectural economic policy?
>corporations driven and existing solely for profit would never cut wages and outsource jobs to shithole pajeet countries! Offshoring jobs is what the gubmint wanted!
Nice cope.
>everyone who disagrees with me is a publicly schooled normie liberal communist npc sheeple
Lolbertardians always have to poison the well and prop up strawmen before they argue their moronic ideology. It isn't the 19th century anymore you stupid moron. Monopolies will always form de-facto governing structures of power to maintain profits and protect assets. You know this but you are an intellectually dishonest Randian underagegay that can't come up with a refutation to this.
You are a israelite in every way except physically.
It was better working in a farm than in an factory, you're saying bullshit
>gary johnson
>not a laughing stock of the Libertarian movement
Come on man, we all mock him.
You're going to have to try harder.
Johnson is an idiot for thinking driver's licenses are a necessity. They're not. That's why he was getting booed.
Driver's licenses should not be required because driving a motor vehicle is a right and the government is too inept to judge your ability anyway. The roads should be privatized and the owners should require some certification. It would solve traffic issues and the problem of those stupid leftist protesters always destroying businesses. I'm talking about legitimate forces that could use force against them to get them to leave. You should be barred from roads in the same way a restaurant can kick you out for being drunk and belligerent.
We don't need government. Capitalists can't just pay private security to defend themselves in anarchism.
We're not the brainlets like
that think out of context images are meant to emotionally manipulate people are solid evidence of anything. We think rationally and with logic.
>Capitalists can't just pay private security to defend themselves in anarchism.
Because magical fairy dust stops them?
without the state there wouldn't be markets in the first place, so no capitalists to rule over anyone. that'd be done by the emerging warlord class taking advantage of the power vacuum
>thank god the industrial revolution saved us from horrible and we can go to school now
OOOOOHHHHH IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH
THAT'S IT, THROW OUT THE DATA, CHARTS AND FACTS, THERE'S AN OUT OF CONTEXT IMAGE OF A CHILD WORKING
GOOD JOB YOU TOTALLY OWNED ME GO POST THIS ON YOUR EPIC REDDIT SCREENCAP THREAD
FEE FEES >>>> FACTS
dilate
Taken moments before the kid on the right accidentally stuck his arm in that unshielded high speed belt and made the factory owner mad and made his dad pay for the damages to the machine.
That rarely happened
The free market instituted safety regulations
>that rarely happened
My hometown had a shitload of paper mills all the way into the 80's, and I know like 20+ adults near me who lost either limbs or fingers in those frickers, and more than half of those were teenagers working in the mills at 16-18 when it happened.
If that many people could loose appendages working as teenagers in 80's paper mills, i'm willing to bet that 19th century kids got injured or killed all the fricking time in factories.
Friendly reminder that libertarianism is a mental illness
Imagine trying to sound intellectual and starting your argument with "seethe and cope"
My fricking sides
imagine actually trying to debate me, oh wait you know you'd lose
why would I want to a debate a spastic that's already been btfo 15 minutes ago lmao
>true power of the free market.
anon you are delusional Truth does not require to believe or imagine
Free from what? Market is a place where rich take goods and services from the poor and we need a lots of poor in order to have one rich.
Currency redistribute goods and services to the rich.
We all have got 24h a day to exchange in a meaningful way . Honest book keeping office prevents from lie and usury.
Money is a tool of coercion and usury. Mark of the Devil, because no one does stupid shit for free.
The problem with the industrial revolution is that it created tools (capital) with a productivity much higher than almost no worker (labor) could ever match. Because of that way fewer workers were needed to produce the same amount of goods, so labor as a factor of production became much more abundant than capital, losing bargaining power. As workers productivity grew, and those workers started demanding more goods and services labor became more scarce and workers started having more leverage to demand better wages and working conditions.
The point is that it was the market what improved worker conditions, not unions, politicians or the other dumb leeches leftists like applaud.
based
libertarianism wins again
>The industrial revolution singlehandedly resulted in a reduction in child labor from 100% to 18% and kept falling afterward.
Quoted for truth.
The industrial revolution isn't bad because children suffered during it, it's bad because it originated a growth for the sake of growth mindset that sucks comparative wealth out of the hands of everyone but billionaires in exchange for a few shitty mass manufactured creature comforts and encourages policies that cause the importation of third worlders as voting blocs and to keep wages down, that stop us from adequately responding to pandemics, and will probably result in the earth becoming uninhabitable for humans due to unsustainable practices being the norm in every industry.
Supply that data showing this.
>There is data that outright disproves it.
Show me.
Okay Mugatu.
I agree that the IR was a net good and that Ted Kaczynski and his followers are morons but libertarianism does not work. Communism or frick off.
>The suicide rate for children and adolescents in early modern England exceeded modern percentages considerably. Children suffered a sense of isolation in a system which sent them from parents' home and set them apart from its support system, and significant numbers reacted against this loneliness in spite, taking revenge upon forces beyond their control through suicide.
>It was evidently not so much the extraordinary brutality of discipline as it was the isolation of young people that formed the root of the problem of childhood suicide. It was customary in early modern England for children between seven and fifteen to be sent from their parents' homes into service, apprenticeship, or tutelage in other households. While the existence of this custom has been painstakingly documented, its implications remain very obscure, and interpretation is controversial. The child or adolescent either already in service or still at home awaiting departure had to be profoundly estranged, lonely, and anxious. It would matter little whether the master was kindly or brutal and the parents loving or cold. The young person was alone and trapped in a situation from which there could be no real escape.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2540320
I literally have children sized mine lamp in my kitchen from when member of my family that were 10/12 were going to the coal mine.
Go frick yourself Black person.
>Before the IR, children had to work or their families would starve to death.
Not really, it was more that if children work to sustain their existence, then their standard of living goes up because it means more resources devoted to things other than food. The claim that you just made is itself leftist propaganda as well. Sure, if you were a moronic homosexual in a population center and your parents could only perform menial labor, and your moronic father was a drunkard and your moronic mother couldn't properly husband a household, then yeah it probably was close to an issue of survival.
Imagine sucking the dicks of industrialists
Pathetic OP is disconnected from the common man
>myth
homie just visit bangladesh or just mexico
Anon, low IQ lowers productivity. Come up with a comparison that shares an average IQ.
>The "child labor" myth
bait
Child labour is still used to make tons of the shit we use now.
Chocolate and Clothing are specifically bad, but almost all industries using cheap foreign work also use child labour
I don't know how you could think it was a myth, even my grandpa did child labour, not mining or some crazy shit, but that was even in 1940.
>The industrial revolution singlehandedly resulted in a reduction in child labor from 100% to 18% and kept falling afterward
You cannot refute this
Capitalism or markets are great. No argument there. But they are not perfect. You want regulations to stop the market from fricking society.
Libertarian sounds cool but it's pretty crazy. Not sure what the difference between getting fricked by business mid any different from setting fricked by the government.
>It was a myth peddled by hysterical liberal moralists.
Material comfort from overproduction allowed what you would call 'liberal moralists' to spend their spare time and energy working against slavery and the generalized enclosure of the commons that had started in the 16th century
earlier children helped parents with their business from early age. industrialization raised the education requirements.
Ted is just seething neet writing about his seething.
Meanwhile in English graveyards.
>ywn live in the medieval warm period