Posts by Charles Campbell7

The whole situation is incredibly convoluted, but the way it’s being presented feels like nothing more than throwing a bone to a hungry crowd just to stir up some cheap arguments. I honestly find myself wondering why there hasn't been some kind of massive, coordinated national outcry over this topic.☕

Gregory Peterson2 said:The Church—or at least those representing the conservative establishment—spent a good chunk of time rejecting potatoes altogether. They actually argued that anything growing beneath the soil was surely the work of the devil. I suppose by clinging to such absurdities, they ended up triggering widespread famine across France, which ultimately paved the way for the Revolution.

🤣 So, I suppose we’re meant to believe that the true catalyst for the French Revolution wasn't actually the massive debt incurred from participating in the American Revolution—nor was it the general chaos of constant warfare and runaway inflation leading up to the uprising. No, apparently, it wasn't even the intellectual spark of the Enlightenment. Instead, I guess the whole thing boils down to the Church's theological stance on the potato.
Quincy:

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I don't claim to be an expert on everything, but there are certain patterns in our current political climate that seem almost too predictable to ignore. It feels like we are constantly circling the same drain, doesn't it? One moment we are debating minor policy shifts, and the next, it feels like the entire foundation of our civic discourse is being dismantled by people who wouldn't know common sense if it hit them in the face. I was thinking about this earlier today while watching the news, and it strikes me how much noise there is. Everyone has an opinion, everyone is shouting, yet very little actually moves the needle toward anything constructive. It’s all just performative outrage at this point. I guess some people find it entertaining, but to me, it just seems exhausting. We have these massive institutions—think of something like the Federal Reserve or even just the way the Department of Justice operates—that are supposed to provide stability, yet they often feel caught in the middle of this endless tug-of-war between extreme factions. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just being realistic. It seems to me that we’ve lost the ability to have a nuanced conversation. Everything is binary now: you are either completely for something or completely against it. There is no middle ground, no room for "let me think about that," and certainly no room for admitting when you might be wrong. That lack of intellectual humility is, in my estimation, one of the greatest threats to our social fabric. It’s a bit unsettling, really, if you stop to dwell on it for more than a minute. kaže: At its core, there seems to be this underlying tendency to strip children away from their family upbringing just so they can... Characters like Joe were shaped by their own deep-seated convictions and principles.If they actually manage to pull this off, we’re looking at the dawn of a sort of liberal fascism—a system where any thought that doesn't align perfectly with the established mainstream is effectively nipped in the bud before it can even take root.

I suppose the only real reason behind these attacks on the family unit is ideological indoctrination—basically, the way people are being manipulated through propaganda from a very early age. However... I wouldn't go so far as to call it a true liberal regime; honestly, it feels more like a pseudo-liberal tyranny to me.To me, being "liberal" essentially means parents feel entitled to raise their children however they see fit, without any external constraints. It’s a bit ironic, really—these people act like ideological tyrants while hiding behind the mask of freedom. It reminds me of the way dictators like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot operated; they all claimed to be fighting for liberty, yet their actions were anything but free. 🤣 It seems like everyone is suddenly out to get the natural man.

Honestly, there isn't even a logical reason for this kind of psychological manipulation. At its core, manipulation is an end in itself. I suspect that those manipulators currently holding power—the types we’ve already discussed—are actually just mentally unstable individuals who don't truly grasp the consequences of their own actions. They don't seem to have a coherent ultimate goal they are trying to achieve; rather, it appears to be a collective delusion where they simply believe, "I am right, and everyone else is obligated to think exactly like me." And then, predictably, they label themselves as liberals. 🤣

I wasn't referring to ethnicity specifically, but rather to the people as a whole—everyone living here in the US.

state=an organization of authority
homeland=historical heritage, identity, culture, and the civilization built over generations
nation=a collection of individuals sharing a common homeland

Today, this state is an American state, because it follows the historical trajectory of the American identity. Regardless of what anyone might think privately.

The government isn't the state, the state isn't the homeland, and the homeland isn't the nation...

So, what does it actually mean when someone tells you, as an American, that you ought to work for your homeland, your state, or your nation?
-To work for your homeland: to preserve and build upon American culture.
-To work for the state: honestly, that’s just a leftover scam from the era of Communism. That was how they robbed Americans—by convincing them not to work for themselves, but to work for the Party instead.
-To work for the nation: also a Communist trick. This phrase is typically used by petty scavengers who want to live off their fellow citizens by force, justifying their greed with some supposed concern for the "nation."

Therefore, you don't need to work for the state or the nation; you should work for yourself. And while doing so, you simply maintain your American identity, just as everyone else around you does. As for those communists and nationalist-chauvinists who scream about "saving the nation" or "protecting the homeland"... no matter how loudly they howl... they are nothing more than frauds and thieves who would sell out both their country and their own mother for $1.75.

There's a little philosophy for you...

Leftists are nothing more than dreamers living in a fantasy land. I suppose it’s perfectly fine to hold those views when you're young and haven't yet grasped how the world actually operates. But when you have an adult—someone who identifies as an intellectual, mind you, in their 40s or 50s—still playing the leftist role... well, that suggests something else entirely is going on. From my observations, there are really just two types of leftists:

The "Sincere" Leftist (an adult who claims to be well-informed) is essentially a narcissistic sociopath who uses leftist ideology as a substitute for reality. They truly behave like narcissists; the moment you attempt to dismantle their ideology with actual logic, they lose their sense of self and react as if they've been personally assaulted.

Then you have the Manipulators. This group doesn't give a damn about ideology at all; they've simply realized they can rake in a paycheck by rambling incessantly about leftist utopias.

It is my firm contention that a sincere, mentally stable adult simply cannot be a leftist. ☕. That said, I am more than willing to hear an example—a specific individual—who might prove me wrong.

driftingcobra22 said:It’s not really that much of a stretch, though, considering when massive players become powerful enough to lobby and bribe, they often try to weaponize the state to secure market dominance and shield themselves from any real competition. History is full of examples of that. They naturally prefer interventionist policies and heavy regulations that are specifically designed to crush their rivals...

The article is definitely a bit forced in certain spots. I don't buy that the ultra-wealthy are always motivated by business interests when they decide to champion an idea that is, fundamentally, anti-capitalist...

But there's still that unanswered question—one that neither Mises nor Nozick gave me a good enough answer to, and I doubt we'll find it in this thread either—why do leftist ideas traditionally dominate the academic, media, and cultural elites? And why do entrepreneurs actually fund and support those very same ideas?

Why would American business owners fund someone like Srećka Horvat to portray capitalism in the worst possible light or call for class warfare against entrepreneurs? On the surface, it looks like a total lapse in judgment to bankroll the person who wants to hang you. Either guys like Mudrinić are fools who have no clue what they're funding—which I doubt—or they secretly hold leftist ideals themselves, which I doubt even more, or there are some hidden motives at play where they're just looking for personal gain...

The issue here is that they aren't actually touching the real problems. During an episode of "fifth day," this guy claimed that the editors over at PBS had outright forbidden them from discussing central banking...

In reality, these so-called "intellectuals" aren't really in conflict with the big tycoons. It’s more like people like Horvat promote social welfare state ideologies, while figures like Todoric actually profit from those exact ideas through things like agricultural subsidies and government interventionism. It’s all the same team, fueled by the same ideas, and pulling from the same pool of money...

Justin Patel8 said:The author made one rather fuzzy assertion in his piece—specifically, the idea that big capitalists love talking about socialism because it wipes out their competition.

Well, if we look past the situation in America, the real reason is much simpler: the media outlets themselves are the primary engines driving this leftist economic propaganda. Most journalists graduate from places like MIT—which is basically a fortress for the socialist mindset where they get properly indoctrinated—and besides, it just sells more copies.

Take, for example, how you see Tom Klauški on sites like CNN calling every single employee of a Todorica-style corporation a "peasant"—even though someone paying taxes to the government isn't exactly a peasant—which is pretty sensationalist if you ask me. Or look at how May Day HRT invited the head of a union from Huntington Ingalls Industries to play the part of the "voice of the downtrodden workers" (as if all workers are saints), complaining about why General Dynamics is buying up May 3rd and threatening to sue the government over it. 🙂

I suspect these socialist ideas are merely being used as a convenient smokescreen to justify draining the federal budget. These people don't have anything to do with actual capitalism. It’s honestly quite baffling to see someone like Todorica labeled a capitalist; he doesn't make his living through market competition, but rather through state subsidies—much like many other so-called "industrial titans."

There is definitely a paper trail regarding where the money goes. The real question is whether there is an organized conspiracy at play: who is funding these various projects, and why are these utopian leftists being given such preferential treatment? It seems almost intentional, as if they are trying to sow chaos within society...

Though, I fear these "socialists" aren't even true believers; they might just be scavengers (relics from the old America era) who focus on nepotism, hiring their own children and associates to fill roles. A significant portion of these leftist "intellectuals" are, frankly, uneducated. They collect titles and degrees, yet they lack basic language skills, possess no real expertise, and all tend to speak and write in the exact same monotonous fashion...

Unless we strip away their golden goose—that is, unless we dismantle the very concept of the welfare state (using state-funded universities as the prime example here)—it is impossible to see any real change.
In the meantime: video

A whopping $1,300... if things stay this way through next week, I might actually have to take a trip to the Philharmonie in Vienna to spend it all on high-end sheet music.

I suspect most people in this country are being significantly overpaid. If compensation actually reflected true productivity, we wouldn't be stuck with this current import-heavy, consumption-driven economy that relies entirely on mounting debt and selling off national assets for pennies on the dollar.

What could possibly be the reason, then? Why did it drop from 44 to 39 dollars?

Does this have anything to do with Germany pulling physical gold out of France, the UK, or the USA, or just the general trend of nations moving their gold reserves back into their own central banks?

Ryan Nelson5 said:Explain this post more clearly... who is the analogy about with the TV and the DVD?

That analogy is meant to describe people who vote for a massive welfare state—essentially, voters who support a system where the government loots one segment of the population and then redistributes those stolen funds. Someone brought up an example earlier: most people would feel too guilty to personally smash a window or break into someone’s house to steal cash just to pay for their college tuition. However, when a politician (the very person they voted for) does it on their behalf, they somehow consider it perfectly legitimate. I suppose I don't quite understand the logic there. To me, it’s still just theft, even if it isn't happening directly at your front door. So, the example refers to forced taxation, though I'd argue inflation has the exact same effect as a tax, making it all pretty much the same thing in the end.

Ryan Nelson5 said:It's the same tired lie every single time...
A bank isn't some black hole where money vanishes once you repay a loan...
That capital flows right back into the economy through the spending of employees, owners, and shareholders...

It’s just the interest. The principal is essentially conjured out of thin air and enters circulation—much like freshly printed cash—whenever a loan is issued... then it seemingly evaporates when the debt is settled.

Consequently, in America, the total amount of money circulating in the economy is controlled exclusively by these private banking institutions (think JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.). The skyrocketing cost of housing, general inflation, and even wage growth over the last decade have been driven almost entirely by these private banks "printing" money via credit. Essentially, the nation's economy isn't steered by politicians, but by the bankers at places like Chase or Citi. This is why certain idealists argue that the Federal Reserve, or rather the politicians, should take control of economic management. However, it's difficult to explain to that crowd that for twenty years now, those very same politicians have been embedding themselves within these private banks, taking out millions in loans without a single cent of actual deposits or any meaningful collateral or mortgage to back them up. It’s the same group of people. I suppose the only sensible solution would be switching to gross salary payments and halting money printing altogether—perhaps through something like a gold standard.

As long as citizens lack the freedom to truly manage their own hard-earned money, there is zero chance of this changing. Imagine if my neighbor hired a thief to snatch my TV and DVD player. Then, they split the loot. When I demand my property back, my neighbor tells me... well, it's our joint property now, because I voted in a democratic election that allowed that thief the right to steal from you. And since I need it right now, he tells me, "we'll get to it next year." 🤣.

We have reached a point where the most self-proclaimed pious moralists and the socially sensitive types are actually advocating for forced robbery as a way of life. And whenever you dare to point out that specific reality, they suddenly stop preaching about morality and goodness and start making excuses. 🤣

Jack Smith5 said:Aside from a few essentials, you don't really need much stuff in life. Honestly, you just need a house with the basics—closets, beds, tables, a bathtub, things like that—plus a car. That's pretty much it.

If you want a better quality of life, you might add a vacation spot, maybe a small plot of land, a computer, and a smartphone every few years when technology actually takes a significant leap forward, rather than every single month.

Everything else is just keeping up with the Joneses.

Capitalism provides way too many distractions that actually lower our quality of life; it makes people less satisfied with themselves and less communal, less human. Even if you can't ignore the overall rise in living standards, it’s about time we replaced capitalism with something better.

Do you know why a crisis is possible?
Because wages are low—way lower than the actual value of the labor being provided. If wages were higher, there would be more room for consumption, which stimulates production and helps avoid crises.

So, aside from other factors, crises are primarily caused by the greed of individuals and profiteers who pay the absolute minimum for others' labor while hoarding the lion's share for themselves and their shareholders. Consequently, the vast majority of people lack the funds to consume, leaving them entirely dependent on debt and the banks.
When the banks turn off the tap, that's when you get a crisis.

Everything would be fine if wages were realistic—meaning employers took a smaller cut, or at least the same amount as everyone else.

Aha. So, someone else is being greedy, and that’s what creates the crisis. You just want a higher paycheck so you can help everyone else through your consumption. And apparently, a malicious government is standing in your way.

And if you take 4.4 million people just like you and bundle them together, you get the American state. Everyone is perfectly honest. Hmm... I wonder where the person robbing us all has disappeared to then... clearly they're hiding somewhere very well. 🤣

Jack Smith5 said:Aside from a few essentials, you don't really need much stuff in life. Honestly, you just need a house with the basics—closets, beds, tables, a bathtub, things like that—plus a car. That's pretty much it.

If you want a better quality of life, you might add a vacation spot, maybe a small plot of land, a computer, and a smartphone every few years when technology actually takes a significant leap forward, rather than every single month.

Everything else is just keeping up with the Joneses.

Capitalism provides way too many distractions that actually lower our quality of life; it makes people less satisfied with themselves and less communal, less human. Even if you can't ignore the overall rise in living standards, it’s about time we replaced capitalism with something better.

Do you know why a crisis is possible?
Because wages are low—way lower than the actual value of the labor being provided. If wages were higher, there would be more room for consumption, which stimulates production and helps avoid crises.

So, aside from other factors, crises are primarily caused by the greed of individuals and profiteers who pay the absolute minimum for others' labor while hoarding the lion's share for themselves and their shareholders. Consequently, the vast majority of people lack the funds to consume, leaving them entirely dependent on debt and the banks.
When the banks turn off the tap, that's when you get a crisis.

Everything would be fine if wages were realistic—meaning employers took a smaller cut, or at least the same amount as everyone else.

Great. Why don't you just go start a company, become an employer, and enjoy life? $3.25☕

Kimberly Cox59 said:First off—you're quoting Marx, an anarchist, which just feels super fuzzy and confusing to me, I guess.
And another thing—you’re kind of forgetting that Marx and Engels actually believed all those measures you mentioned were just a temporary phase. They thought it was all leading toward eventually getting rid of the state entirely, along with all that central planning stuff. I guess they saw it as just a stepping stone.

Look, every single one of these points has already been tested out in one way or another across all those "non-communist" countries you keep talking about. Honestly, some of these ideas are actually being used right now in modern social-democratic nations. So, I guess maybe just stop nitpicking over stuff when it’s pretty clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about.

You haven't got a clue, honestly. I mean, if you had just taken a second to look up the actual dictionary definition of communism, you'd realize it’s supposed to be an idea for a society without... Class, the State, and Money.. ☕

I see the words popping up on the screen, but I’m honestly not seeing a single actual argument to back them up. Just saying "because I said so" isn't really an argument, I guess.

I feel like I've already laid this out before. Look, whenever capital—you know, the cash—starts piling up in the hands of just a few people, it doesn't really matter how much they actually earned to get there. Once they have that kind of weight, those individuals are going to do everything in their power to stay on top. And honestly? They’ll probably do it by keeping workers and everyone else struggling just to get by trapped within the wage system. Basically, these wealthy folks end up pushing the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit for themselves. To me, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes the whole idea of "anarcho"-capitalism feel like a total oxymoron at its core.

So, I mean, does being an anarchist actually mean you have to push back against every single hierarchy out there? Is authority really such a bad thing on its own? I guess we should think about experts and people who actually know what they're talking about. Even your favorite guy, Bakunin, writes that we should probably trust authorities that are actually justified. I mean, you wouldn't exactly ask a carpenter to fix your laptop, right? Or would you really want to listen to a psychologist when they start lecturing you on math? Probably not.

Thank God that’s not the case. I guess you might be having a little trouble distinguishing between legitimate authority and unjustified authority. To me, legitimate authority comes from actual expertise—think of a professor in a classroom, an architect overseeing a construction site, or a conductor leading an orchestra. You know, people who actually know their stuff. Unjustified authority is totally different. That’s just someone holding power because of their position, like a king, a priest, or some boss at a factory. They aren't necessarily experts in their field; they’re just sitting in a position of power and trying to hang onto it. Maybe that makes sense?

I have to wonder if you exercise any sense of logic or reality while you write...

lonetrucker4 said:You even reading your own crap? 😁 You wrote:

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it really that hard to just say, "My bad, I screwed up the first time"? 🤷 So now you're gonna claim you don't know enough about that era to even weigh in? Please.

Look, you're clearly younger than me. You’re just reciting snippets you heard from someone else, mixing up years like the timing doesn't even matter. I get it—to you, this is just "history." Most people couldn't care less if something happened in the 1000s or the 1300s. But for me? This was life. I lived it. I landed my first job in '81, then a year later, we had Margaret Thatcher stepping in with those early moderate reforms and that whole Marshall Plan setup. I wasn't just reading about it; I was right there in the thick of it, starting out as a journalist.

Back then, nobody was looking at the big picture, and there wasn't much data on how things actually worked. Digging up info from that era is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. So, basically... Don't go throwing around theories about stuff you don't even understand; especially since none of it actually matters for your "general truth" anyway.

All this talk about how we "only need to print more dollars" is pure idiocy. Just look at what happened twenty years ago if you want the truth.

I haven't really weighed in on that big-picture topic yet. Honestly? I don't know the first thing about monetary policy.

Look, I don't buy into any of those "you only need x" kind of quick fixes. Total garbage. XSo, where is it? X "Print too much cash," "go full command economy," or just "let the free market run wild." Whatever. Real life is always messier than that—and that's not even talking about economics.

Look, if I get this right, sometimes there’s just not enough cash floating around—basically, the gears stop turning because nobody's spending. In those cases, printing money actually kicks the economy back into gear. But obviously, that's not some magic wand you wave to fix everything. I call those kinds of lazy, one-size-fits-all answers... JUOSP = Simple Universal Answers to Everything. 🙂

Look, I get it—money isn't even real. It’s just a collective hallucination, but hey, it runs the show. Maybe this whole charade will eventually just implode. 😢 Then maybe by the 23rd century, we’ll actually have a moneyless economy, just like in "Star Trek".

Anyway, back to the point. Is it a core part of your "philosophy of freedom" to demand non-expansionary monetary policy? Why the hard line? Does "avoiding inflation" absolutely have to be the holy grail? Sure, hitting 50% or 500% annual inflation is a total disaster, but a little nudge, say 5-6%, isn't necessarily a death sentence. You really think that would inevitably kill our freedom?

On the flip side, wasn't the massive explosion of money supply the actual poison in the global economy ever since the US decoupled the dollar from gold back in '71? Ever since those policies let the money supply balloon through all these "monetary derivatives," making paper "wealth" look way bigger than what's actually happening in the real economy. I remember reading about this in some textbook back in the Clinton era—some guy argued this was the way to go. Then the world started shaking, like during the collapse of the "Asian Tigers" in '97, and we saw it was a huge mistake. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now—like using a Financial Transaction Tax or slowing down speculative cash flow—is actually the exact opposite of "printing money."

If we're arguing against government involvement in the economy, then why even have a national currency? Why not just let every bank print its own cash and let them compete? Kind of like how Walmart issues gift cards that you could potentially trade around?

Inflation is essentially a redistribution of wealth within the country. In this scenario, every single individual would have 6% of their assets stripped away annually. In a truly free society, inflation should be zero at most. And probably the best way to achieve that would be a gold standard.

The fundamental issue here is that when the government enters an investment using printed money, it inevitably triggers inflation if the project fails—or even if it succeeds, you get at least some temporary inflation because these massive projects take years to actually become operational. Essentially, the rest of the population gets robbed via a reduction in purchasing power, which usually ends up being permanent since the state is notoriously incapable of investing effectively.

On the other hand, when a private individual invests their own capital, there is no dilution of purchasing power, meaning no direct robbery of the citizens. In that scenario, purchasing power either stays the same or actually increases.

So, to summarize: state-driven investment through printing money results in either a total robbery or a temporary one against the public... whereas private investment is either neutral or leads to genuine wealth creation by boosting purchasing power.

Jack Smith5 said:Alright, let's tweak the question slightly: what actually happens if money suddenly appears without any backing—basically, if nobody knows where it came from or how it was printed, obviously excluding the people who actually pulled the lever on the press?

It is certainly true that there are certain transitional periods during the injection (or withdrawal) of currency into circulation where one might find opportunities for profit, if that is what you are implying. However, I find it somewhat baffling that anyone would believe they could outsmart international bankers through mere monetary manipulation. It seems rather naive to me. These institutions are supported by think tanks led by dozens of Nobel laureates... and our own politicians, who are supposed to act as the "state" and oppose them, essentially work right alongside them. 🙄

urbanotter said:Since the era when slavery was actually legal, the world has seen incredible leaps in knowledge across almost every field.
However, we have also become much more proficient at managing and manipulating the masses, developing methods that are far more sophisticated and significantly less obvious than they used to be.

Nowadays, this control is exerted through indirect means—through dependency, social pressure, legislation, the established social order, and various other subtle tactics.

To illustrate this, let me share just one specific approach.
Drawing from the work of one of the most influential intellectuals in the United States, the linguist Noam Chomsky, I found a list outlining ten distinct strategies used to manipulate people through the media.

Goethe once remarked that the greatest form of slavery is when you don't even realize you are a slave. And honestly, I think that applies perfectly to voters for the major political parties here. If we actually had a truly free market in the US, people like that would simply destroy themselves. Instead, they are busy destroying the entire fabric of society under the guise of the "welfare state."☕

William Anderson5 said:People aren't actually capable of living autonomously in freedom. There needs to be some kind of guarantor for it, and that role ought to belong to the state. Freedom is little more than an illusion.
I’m convinced a significant portion of people would gladly sell their own freedom if slavery wasn't illegal. But to outlaw slavery, you first have to restrict someone's freedom to sell themselves. Therefore, limiting liberty is a necessity, and that requires a state presence.

Ah, yes, 21st-century human capitalism, featuring the widest wealth gap in history 🙄

Of course this is nonsense. The lower classes have never lived better than they do today. That's just a fact. Go back a hundred years and look at how the poor actually lived compared to how they live now...

I disagree. Slavery, by definition, involves the forcible deprivation of liberty by another person. If an individual chooses to voluntarily restrict their own freedom for the benefit of someone else, that is simply a standard transaction—it has nothing to do with slavery. Following that line of reasoning, a waiter who is required to work an eight-hour shift would be considered a slave, and by that same logic, his employer would be a slave because they are obligated to pay him. I suppose there is no such thing as slavery if there is no coercion involved.

Kimberly Cox59 said:So, we've got an anarchist here who’s actually pushing for a social welfare state as the big alternative to libertarianism. That's interesting, I guess. Personally, if it were up to me, I’d get rid of the government entirely, but probably through a different route with totally different outcomes. But hey, if you're forcing my hand and making me pick between "anarcho"-capitalism and some kind of social welfare model—like what you see in Scandinavia or just a general social safety net—I don't really have a dilemma. I'm fine either way, maybe.

Honestly, I think the anarcho-capitalists are the biggest joke of all. They just don't seem to get that capitalism... well, you know. It’s kind of wild, really. Always. It all just leads straight to injustice and those rigid hierarchies we see everywhere, which is basically the polar opposite of anarchy. I guess that’s just how it works, maybe?

Here we go again—another "anarchist" out here pushing for state solutions. I guess it’s funny how that works. To me, it seems like the whole socialist philosophy you're peddling—and honestly, I call anyone who wants to redistribute wealth based on some imaginary "social" metric a socialist—is basically built on this one idea: it's better for everyone to be equally miserable than to have any inequality when it comes to freedom. Maybe that's just how you see it, though.

What kind of freedom are we even talking about? I just don't see it. I mean, take a worker in India making shoes on an assembly line—they don't have any real freedom at all. And honestly, I guess workers in the US aren't much better off either, since their whole lives basically depend on whether their boss decides to be kind or not.

I honestly think socialism always ends up lifting the standard of living for most people. And please, let’s not even get started on North Korea—that’s just not what socialism is about at all.

If you had actually looked into this issue, you might have realized that if we're talking about China—which I assume is the main reason you're so obsessed with "Asia"—this place was basically a massive, unindustrialized rural wasteland just fifty years ago. Like, seriously, 90% of the people were just poor farmers living off whatever they could scrape together from the dirt, with absolutely zero chance of ever escaping that poverty. Communism pretty much wiped them out during those insane Maoist "Great Leaps Forward." It wasn't until a little bit of free enterprise managed to sneak its way into that massive country that things actually started moving forward in a big way. For instance, there’s this one super famous case from the late seventies that really shows how crazy socialism and planned economies can be—it almost completely destroyed China:
I was just reading this piece from NPR about how much the landscape in China has shifted over the years. It’s pretty wild to think about, honestly. You look at how they've handled their economic growth and it really makes you wonder about the sheer scale of the transformation. I guess it’s one of those things where you realize just how fast a massive economy can pivot when the direction changes. Maybe it's just me, but seeing that kind of shift—it's almost hard to wrap your head around. Just a lot to process, I suppose.

That’s an interesting point. Look, I’m definitely not trying to defend Maoism—that stuff is pure evil, plain and simple. But, I guess you could look at it this way... here's an example of something that actually worked. Voluntary. I mean, maybe that's just how things work sometimes? It feels like everything is becoming so much more... well, organized lately. But yeah, voluntary. I guess. Well, you also have those instances of collectivization that actually ended up driving production through the roof and really bumping up the standard of living. I guess it happened sometimes, maybe? It’s interesting how that works out.
I was just reading through this deep dive on how various revolutions actually play out, and man, it really makes you think about the cycle of things. It’s easy to get swept up in the excitement of a big uprising, but looking at history, there's always that messy transition period where everything feels like it's spinning out of control. I guess it's one of those things where the initial spark is easy, but keeping the momentum without falling into total chaos is the hard part. Maybe that's why so many movements end up looking exactly like what they were trying to overthrow in the first place? It’s a bit heavy, I know, but honestly, it’s pretty fascinating to see how these patterns repeat themselves over and over again.

I guess the modern Chinese person is actually making massive strides precisely because of how much free market they have, not despite it. It’s kind of wild when you think about it. I’d really suggest checking out this TED talk if you want to start seeing how those "exploited" workers have actually come out on top. Honestly, they seem way happier today than their parents were just twenty or thirty years ago.

So, I was just checking out this TED talk by Leslie Mitcheson about how we handle workers and productivity, and man, it really gets you thinking. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you dig in, there's so much more going on. I guess she's looking at how we structure everything in the workplace. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like such a huge part of our daily lives, right? You know, how we spend most of our waking hours just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Anyway, it's definitely worth a watch if you have a few minutes to spare. Just some food for thought!

Well, he's more or less saying that people are actually volunteering to come work for the city. And I mean, yeah, that’s true, obviously. But they aren't exactly heading over there just so they can...They picked up some new skills and really got out there to see the world.But honestly, how would they even make enough to actually live? Most of them are still stuck in poverty, I guess.

Nah, I think the other way to go is just being self-employed. In a truly free society—one that isn't constantly squeezing its citizens just to fund some massive social welfare programs—where taxes on small business owners and entrepreneurs are kept at a minimum or maybe even nonexistent, things change. If you can take a hobby or something you're actually talented at and turn it into your own little venture, I guess that’s just a way better move. It's probably a much more profitable option than just sitting around the house, complaining about how there are no jobs out there.

So, what happens next? You go out and start a small business, only to watch it tank because you're getting crushed by massive corporations. It’s the same story we saw with local watchmakers, tailors, and all those other small shops that just couldn't hang. Even the mid-sized factories are struggling to stay competitive these days. So, if I'm following your logic, people are supposed to just keep pouring their hard-earned cash—where would they even get that money, I guess?—into tiny startups that will probably fail 90% of the time anyway? It just doesn't seem to add up.

I mean, sure, some fields really do require you to go through the motions at a specialized university. But for most everyday jobs? I guess you don't necessarily need a fancy degree. Think about things like retail, accounting, construction, or even all those various trades. Even more technical stuff, like computer science and its cousins—you can pretty much tackle that on your own. Honestly, having a membership at your local public library and just a tiny bit of willpower and ambition to learn something new is probably enough. Maybe that's all it takes, really.

I mean, seriously, how is some kid out there—someone who’s actually got tons of potential but zero dollars in their pocket—supposed to go after a degree in the sciences or social studies if they can't afford tuition? And please, don't give me that "just go to the library" line... I guess it's just not that simple.

I guess that’s just another thing about libertarianism. It kind of leads to this spiritual emptiness, you know? Since everyone is just hyper-focused on chasing the next dollar, there isn't much room left for anything else.

I mean, you're totally mixing up your terms here—and I bet you're doing it on purpose, too. Look, the world we’re living in right now isn't some free-for-all of laissez-faire or pure entrepreneurship. It's actually dominated by corporatism, or maybe neo-mercantilism if you want to get technical. It’s all about markets that are centrally controlled and partially managed by big players. Just my two cents, I guess.

I get that, but honestly, I don't think a pure laissez-faire approach would be any better. Right now, it seems like the wealthy prefer corporatism because the government provides them with a certain level of security. Just look at China—it’s basically just total cooperation between big business and the state, where the party manages any social unrest using funds provided by the industrialists.

Look, I guess it’s just a statistical fact that when you look at the entire history of the human race, despite all the massive headaches we deal with today, things are actually... well, different. Maybe they're just feeling less hungry? I guess. Or maybe they're just more satisfied. It's hard to say, really....fewer wars, at the very least. Less sickness, less illiteracy. I guess that’s really all we can aim for, right? Maybe just keeping things simple like that.And, you know, at the very least, we're looking at political inequality.

I guess you could say those socialist systems are largely to blame for how things turned out...

I honestly think we’re living in the most peaceful and prosperous era since humans first crawled out of their caves. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. And look, regardless of how you personally feel about all that, the statistics really tell a story. They show this massive upward surge that lines up perfectly with the start of industrialization and the rise of capitalist—or even quasi-capitalist—ways of running an economy. I guess the numbers don't lie.

It obviously aligns with industrialization—I mean, how could it not? 😕
Also, I wouldn't bother making comparisons to the pre-industrial era.

And hey, driftingjackal5, how would the justice system actually work in "anarcho"-capitalism?

Well, once you go ahead and abolish the state, a genie pops out and asks you exactly what kind of consequences you're looking for this time...🙄

Regarding inheritance and the redistribution of wealth within a society, there’s that old observation: if we were to seize all the money today and distribute it equally among everyone, within fifteen years, everything would just revert back to how it was before. The wealthy would become wealthy again, and the poor would find themselves poor once more. I suppose the children of wealthy parents would simply blow through the cash, and the whole problem would be solved.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Who isn't working? I mean, most unemployed people aren't just sitting around by choice—at least, I guess 99% of them aren't. And honestly, free education (funded by taxes) is great for everyone, especially for folks in lower income brackets who wouldn't be able to afford tuition on their own. How is that anything but fair?

Marxist? Goodness, no. I'm an anarchist, actually.

Look, a "worker" is still just an individual with all their own rights. The difference between a "worker" and a "boss" is simply that instead of investing property, they invest their labor.

Right, but isn't it also true that their assets are, say, a few million times smaller than the boss's, so without some kind of social safety net, they wouldn't even have a chance at moving up in life?

The "boss" pays for the "worker's" time at a rate established by the equilibrium of supply and demand in a free market.

Basically, whatever they feel like paying. ☕

An unskilled worker won't be able to sell their labor for a high price simply because the supply of unskilled workers is high and demand is low. A highly skilled worker can sell their labor for a much higher price, especially if demand is high too. That's why, for example, an unskilled street cleaner earns a low wage, while a highly skilled programmer earns a high one.

Sure, but why are there so many unskilled workers, like in Asia for instance? It's not that they aren't smart; it's just that they don't have access to that education because of the extreme poverty they live in.

There is no exploitation whatsoever if both parties—the "boss" and the "worker"—enter into that relationship by mutual consent and voluntarily.

Sure, I get that, but the other option for the "worker" just ends up being unemployment and general poverty.

Education isn't just something that happens inside a classroom or at a university. It’s constant, you know? It happens whenever someone who works actually tries to get better at what they do. Back in the day, people used to call this apprenticeship. You'd have an unskilled worker putting in the time for a tiny, maybe even symbolic, paycheck until they finally mastered the craft and could call themselves a pro. That way, even people who didn't have any practical skills or the chance for a formal degree could—if they had enough grit—build a better life for themselves and their families.

That sounds brilliant. But wait, how would social sciences even be taught under that plan? They don't exactly turn a profit. What about astronomy? Or zoology, for most cases?

Besides, that whole "evil industrialist" trope of yours feels like it was ripped straight out of a Charles Dickens novel... Maybe try stepping into the 21st century a little bit.

Aha, so it's 21st-century humane capitalism, featuring the widest gap between the rich and the poor in history. Cool.🙄

Heh, it’s like aiming for taxes and anarchy all at once. Maybe that's just how it goes? ☕

Where exactly does that line get drawn? How much can you actually take from someone else before you lose your integrity? Personally, I’ve always felt there’s a distinction between theft and... well, let's call it "honest survival." In my view, the threshold for what constitutes an honest theft—if such a thing even exists—would be limited strictly to meeting basic biological necessities. You know, things like bread, water, or a roof over your head. Anything beyond that feels like a different story entirely.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Personally, I find libertarianism pretty appealing, but honestly, only the left-wing kind...

Why? Well, I guess it's because capitalism—especially that extreme anarcho-capitalist version—just feels inherently unfair. Right-wing libertarians love to moan about how "taking" someone's hard-earned property is wrong, but they totally overlook the fact that a lot of that wealth comes from exploiting people. It's just simple logic, really. If some massive industrialist is paying his workers peanuts, those workers don't stand a chance at actually getting ahead in society. So, taking a slice of that tycoon's wealth to fight poverty isn't really "theft," in my opinion.

That just doesn't make sense to me. If anything, Catholics should probably be fighting for free schooling, because that’s exactly what "loving your neighbor" is all about.

There are really only two possibilities here—either they think teachers and professors should just work for nothing.

Oh man, lol 🤣

But look, can the government pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Of course not. The state is essentially a monopoly on the legal use of force. When faced with a demand for "free education," the state responds by using coercion—through taxes—to seize property from one person to give to another. In this scenario, they'd take money from every taxpayer to cover the costs for those demanding "free schooling."

Yeah, sure, but they'd end up taking more from the wealthy folks who can actually afford a small hit like that. Plus, in an anarcho-capitalist world, everyone would have to pay for schooling anyway, so where's the actual difference? 🤷

If someone were to rob a convenience store and then go around handing out the cash to those in need, would you call that person a thief, or would you call them a devout Catholic? I suppose it really depends on how one defines the morality of the act versus the intention behind it. ☕

Kimberly Cox59 said:Personally, I find libertarianism pretty appealing, but honestly, only the left-wing kind...

Why? Well, I guess it's because capitalism—especially that extreme anarcho-capitalist version—just feels inherently unfair. Right-wing libertarians love to moan about how "taking" someone's hard-earned property is wrong, but they totally overlook the fact that a lot of that wealth comes from exploiting people. It's just simple logic, really. If some massive industrialist is paying his workers peanuts, those workers don't stand a chance at actually getting ahead in society. So, taking a slice of that tycoon's wealth to fight poverty isn't really "theft," in my opinion.

That just doesn't make sense to me. If anything, Catholics should probably be fighting for free schooling, because that’s exactly what "loving your neighbor" is all about.

There are really only two possibilities here—either they think teachers and professors should just work for nothing.

Oh man, lol 🤣

But look, can the government pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Of course not. The state is essentially a monopoly on the legal use of force. When faced with a demand for "free education," the state responds by using coercion—through taxes—to seize property from one person to give to another. In this scenario, they'd take money from every taxpayer to cover the costs for those demanding "free schooling."

Yeah, sure, but they'd end up taking more from the wealthy folks who can actually afford a small hit like that. Plus, in an anarcho-capitalist world, everyone would have to pay for schooling anyway, so where's the actual difference? 🤷

People seem to love this idealistic notion that the government will just swoop in, snatch everything from the wealthy, and hand it out to the poor. Honestly, though? I don’t see a single real-world example where that actually happens. It sounds nice in theory, I guess, but in practice, it's just not how things work.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

I wouldn't call it an inherent deficiency. During that specific era, there was a massive surge in capital—essentially a spike in productivity—which allowed for things like basic education, since such costs didn't significantly strain the economy at the time. Therefore, those social programs, among others, were actually a byproduct of increased capital and productivity rather than a result of state intervention necessitated by some failure of the system.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

Education certainly existed in ancient Rome (and even earlier). And it persisted right up until Rome ran out of capital. It seems to me that education depends on capital availability, not on the state. By the way, the sole reason the Church acted as the educator during the Middle Ages was because they were the only ones in Europe preserving Roman texts while everyone else was busy fighting over the collapse of the Pax Romana. Of course, they adapted those texts to fit their own doctrine and eliminated anyone who dared to be a competitor.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

Libertarianism doesn't insist that labor is the sole means of acquiring wealth; that sounds more like Marxist doctrine to me. The actual emphasis is on the protection of property rights. More broadly, it’s about the freedom to make decisions without coercion.