MenKlash

I’d prefer the term statism, but I agree with you.

Government police “services” must be abolished.

The free market is not, as the social Darwinists imagine, a struggle between rich and poor, strong and weak. It is the principal means by which human beings cooperate in order to live. If each of us had to produce all his food and shelter by himself, almost no one could survive. The existence of large-scale society depends absolutely on social cooperation through the division of labor.

Believing that banning a piece of fabric will stop police oppression is, ironically, encouraging such oppression by coercively violating the right to private property and freedom of expression.

No amount of prolix explanation excuses even the act of stereotyping.

It depends on why and how you use stereotypes.

Prejudice only properly refers to judgments formed without consideration of the available information.

Prejudging is legitimate when we do not have all the relevant facts of an object or subject, having to resort to inductive reasoning in order to try to induce and predict its individual characteristics.

It’s all about trying to make new information about someone or something, so we can economize information.

The politically correct bien-pensants always fail to recognize that stereotyping is a form of inductive reasoning. If you see something repeatedly, but not necessarily without fail, you form an opinion, which is layered with a degree of truth. A subset of the human race, based on ethnicity, inclination, or geography, will spring to mind after reading each of the following words: financier, migrant worker, male flight attendant, NASCAR driver, sprinter.

I’m sure most of us immediately conjured similar images. Yes, it is unfair to impose a group characteristic onto an individual, but we did so nonetheless. To belabor the obvious, each of us is an individual, not a group. When the stereotype is proven fallacious for an individual, move on.

Some people care about the latest thing, regardless if it directly affects them or not.

I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

But not about the humanity, dignity, and freedom of people.

Are you referring to the recognition of the problems involving those concepts or the solutions proposed to fix them?

We can have different approaches and views about a variety of problems, but the concepts would be the same.

It doesn’t mean we should always make an agreement about how to solve them, but the idea of treating others who don’t think like me as “monsters” just because they are different is populist and dishonest.

Hating ideas is not the same as hating people.

The problem is that they fall in a false dilemma.

Evaluating the world and the people around you with labels so generic as “left wing” or “right wing” is not useful at all. Another problem is being too politicized, as I think it can damage your relationships with others.

I don’t know too much about the MAGA movement, as I’m not american, but thanks for sharing your views.

Yes, because america falling into fascism

I’d like to know what is your definition of fascism.

Better it goes into government so at least people can vote to change it.

We can’t change it. Politicians would still have their monopolical powers because they help each other. Don’t trust the government. Billionaires not only influence it, they also receive help from them.

Because we voted for them.

The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn’t vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?

The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don’t choose them.

“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."

We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies.

Because we shouldn’t. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private property and their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.

There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.

The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn’t have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.

Taxes exist because public goods are actually good, and benefit everyone.

Taxes raise money for transfers to special interests and public employees. Why would you trust an oligarchy of politicians (the State) to decide which goods are useful “for a community” and which don’t?

In contrast to private businesses that supply the goods that consumers voluntarily want to buy, public officials lack of the capacity to pick data as to what people truly demand, much less how to go about meeting those demands economically. They don’t have direct feedback of what every individual in the community want; they don’t pass the test of economic rationality.

If the Monopoly of Violence can’t act economically, they have no other choice but respond to interest groups, so tax money will necessarily end up with narrow interest groups rather than the provision of “public goods”

The sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts.

The end does not justify the means. The mere existence of taxation is detrimental (and antithetical) to the very source of economic growth, that is, voluntary exchange.

Goods like education and roads, for example, are goods like any other: they can be supplied by markets and markets alone.

The only privilege we need is a better community.

A better community will be formed if it’s achieved by voluntary means. Moral obligation is not the same as legal obligation. How can individuals be virtuous? By letting them act freely.

Economic inequality being one of the biggest drivers of democratic back sliding.
Shitty part is that authoritarian doesn’t really offer anything better.

Hey! Let’s solve “economic inequality” with more statism! That’s not authoritarian at all!

Obviously, wanting to reduce the monopolical privileges of politicians, public spending and taxes (robbery), erradicating the central bank, increasing work flexibility and advocating for individual rights and liberty is fascist af. Believe me, guys!

Removed by mod

You mean all these private international businesses have a hard time going around worldwide regulations?

Quite the contrary; the State by lobbying, subsidies and “international aids” is actually benefiting the giant businesses, as the coercion made by the State harms the SME’s and we the common people to trade with other countries.

Basically, I’m describing corporatocracy (the State is dominated by corporate business interests).

Do you know, that even with the sanctions, russia exports and imports (almost) as usual, because internationally nobody cares? And if sb cares, they will make a daughtercompany in no time which does the trade?

By “russia exports and imports” (fallacious use of collective nouns), I’ll interpret it as businesses affected by the sanctions.

As I said before: “Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics”. You can’t just infere those sanctions are not working from having analyzed statistics and economic history. You need first an economic theory that tries to explain how the economy works by identifying the causal relationships between economic actions and events.

I’d recommend you to read about Mises’s Human Action (praxeology based on methodological individualism).

Man wtf. We had over 100 Years of almost free market and look where we are now.

I don’t know what you interpret as “free market”, but the mere existance of a Monopoly of Violence, lobbying, manipulation of money, state licenses, blah, blah, blah… is not free at all.

Businesses in germany have to pay a fuckload of taxes and still get richt as fuck.

Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics.

If there is no free market on a national scale, than there is a almost anarchytical free market on an international scale.

What about protectionism, tariffs, special licenses, international regulations, “common goods”, the World Bank Group, the IMF, and very much any kind of coercion made by “Welfare” States?

And they have to pay back what they destroyed. Like everybody else, when you destroy sth, either on purpose or without, you need to pay.

“Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another’s property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive.”

the people can rise up against the capitalists to stop them from poisoning our only habitat we are all wholly dependent upon

Are you ignoring all the labor these “capitalists” and their workers do to provide you the goods we all wholly demand upon? All of this is done by social cooperation between both of them by voluntary association.

We can stop the self-destructive madness of demanding infinite growth carved out of the ass of a finite world.

This would work if the price system would actually work as intended (free from the intervention of the State) to distribute all the scarce resources in a free-market setting.

Greta is doing the right thing in the face of Armageddon

By wanting the Monopoly of Violence to step in? To call the international organizations (spoilers: they don’t care about us) to intervene in foreign countries?

Almost everyone else will either continue begging the sociopathic oligarch polluters to stop

They can actually do that because of the existence of “common goods” and of the monopolical privileges granted by the same State, such as subsidies, regulations discreetly affecting SMEs, the lack of enforcement of private property to protect those “common goods”, etc.

but those are usually the same people that get angry at others for claiming the “free capital market” isn’t the cure for the many self-inflicted human crises caused by the “free capital market.”

On the contrary; they love subsidies, they love intellectual property, they love FIAT money, they love the monopolical privileges: basically, their activities depend entirely on the mere existence of corporatocracy.