“The only ‘fair’ is laissez-faire, always and forever.” ― Dmitri Brooksfield
Do you believe no one can live outside the authority of the government?
Do you believe in theft and redistribution of wealth to fund their programs?
Do you believe a small oligarchy of politicians can best regulate the economy?
Do you believe a monopoly of fiat currency must be maintained?
Do you believe in using violence and force against those who disagree with you?
If yes, I think you should reconsider your position about who “deserve oxygen” and who does not.
If the person renting a home stops paying, the landlord will use force to evict the person.
In this case, the force applied by the landlord is legimitate because the tenant is not performing their contractual obligations over the property of the landlord.
You didn’t pay taxes? Here, lemme force you to stay in prison for a while, also here’s a fine on top of that.
There is no contract between the government and citizen that legitimize the violence of the state. Any theory of a “social contract” will be unilateral by nature. Actually, the state itself is a threat to the Non-Agression Principle.
Not all contracts are voluntary and, more importantly, the workers are almost always the weaker party when it comes to negotiation.
The asymmetries of power between both parties does not mean the contract is not voluntary. In fact, any government intervention in the labor market will make this situation worse, as these encourage poverty and harm those workers who are the less productive in the market.
If you leave it to the market to “self-regulate”, you’ll just get feudalism 2.0, where companies become the new noble houses
As long as private property is not violated by institutional coercion; as long as the system of prices is not manipulated by any government policy; as long as human action and his natural rights are respected: social cooperation through the division of labor will flourish, as voluntary exchange is the source of economic progress.
Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity, as property is the only way to resolve conflicts by the existence of scarce resources.
The market is a process, not an “equilibrium model”. It is not designed, but emerged from human action.
Really, any sufficiently big company will act just like a govt, full of unnecessary bureaucracy
The difference is that having market concentration does not mean being a monopoly. In fact, a monopoly is a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting.
The state can not have direct consumer feedback; it can not act economically. Instead, it collects taxes and spends them arbitrarily following interest groups.
“In a market economy, the range of quality, quantity, and type of goods and services correspond to social needs. These goods are services that are valued by consumers, and hence, they will be provided if it is economically feasible to do so relative to other social priorities.”
lunatics that cry at taxation but orgasm at rent and profiting off others’ work.
The former is only possible through institutional compulsion and coercion. The latter is through a voluntary contract that expresses the cooperation of both parties to work for each other, as they have a property interest in specific performance of the other.
Denying this process of voluntary exchange is, implicitly, denying the free will of the tenant and worker.
Taxation is robbery. I live in Argentina (+100% in taxes) and I have this problem too.
Every person who think that their vote (in a representative democracy) matters, is a victim of the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion, that is, the state.
However, what makes the state different from other coercive entities, such as organized crime groups, is that it enjoys some form of popular legitimacy. In other words, in addition to enslaving its inhabitants physically, it needs to secure their mental servitude as well.
Government police “services” must be abolished.
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.
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.
In a short-term, yes. Long-term? A complete disaster.
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.
Sorry, but I don’t love the taste of the boot of the monopoly of violence (the State) and it’s robbery (taxation), mass murder (war) and slavery (conscription).
Bureaucracy, corruption, FIAT money, intellectual property, common goods, the welfare state… The idea of an oligarchy of politicians controlling and regulating the economy and our private lifes in the name of “democracy” and “the common good” is actually helping those billionaries we BOTH hate so much.
Social democracy is practically the same thing as corporatocracy, but with a little of populism. On the other hand, “any step toward socialism is a step toward economic irrationality”.
Tell me how you don’t know the difference between corporatocracy and capitalism without telling me how you don’t know the difference between corporatocracy and capitalism.
The landlords are providing a service to those who can’t afford houses, and the tenants, through economic calculation, determine that it’s better to pay for a department rather that saving for a house.
In fact, deficit spending, printing fiat money and manipulating interest rates harm savings and relative prices.
“If there seems to be a shortage of supply to meet an evident demand, then look to government as the cause of the problem.”