Philosophy of Freedom

rowdyranger44 said:urbanotter, the ones who walked away with the biggest slice of the pie are the very same people who spent years suffocating any semblance of fair market competition. They’ve been rigging the regulatory framework like they're getting a custom suit hand-tailored just for them. The Federal Government has more than proven its track\\s incompetence over the last two decades. It is high time they stepped back and actually fixed the things that would benefit everyone. Let them start by fixing the judicial system. That would do far more good than them continuing to play the big shot in our national economy.

urbanotter said:I think you're saying that because you're in a much more privileged position than I am.
You seem to be playing the role of a prophet who can see right through everyone's character without any actual evidence, predicting exactly how things will play out—and somehow concluding that we should just vote for the same people who have already cheated us and stolen from us.

I consider myself just an average person, and I have no intention of voting for anyone who has a history of corruption or dishonesty. I prefer to live by the old adage that a wise person learns from their mistakes and doesn't repeat them, while a fool keeps making the same errors even when they know better.

I'm going to cast my vote for anyone who hasn't been part of that cycle of theft and deceit, provided there is even the slightest chance they might actually do things differently. As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no future left with the people who have held power up until now.

urbanotter said:Until the majority realizes this and pushes for change, true freedom remains out of reach.

Our entire way of life and how we behave is dictated through the design and control of the financial and monetary systems.

This is achieved through manipulation and by feeding us delusions, such as the idea that we should wait for salvation from foreign capital or outside investors.

The world isn't filled with philanthropists and Good Samaritans; instead, it is dominated by greed, avarice, and self-interest.

The only way out of this mess is to rely on our own strength and protect our interests from both our own leaders and those "Samaritans" from overseas. As the old saying goes, if you help yourself, God will help you.

There are two main things causing us the most harm.
-An unprotected, open market that dictates exactly what we are supposed to consume.
-The current model of monetary and financial policy.

I believe the only thing the average person can do is vote for the party they feel is the lesser of two evils—the one actually attempting to address these two core issues.

For now, that would be the Labor Party, who, despite all their flaws as a political organization, seem to recognize exactly where the deepest problems in this society are hidden.

urbanotter said:But then who exactly would you hand that power to?

Maybe we should hand it to the very people who exploited market conditions at everyone else's expense and directly contributed to us landing in this mess.

It feels like a bit of a contradiction to blame them for causing the crisis while simultaneously claiming they were just behaving "normally."😕

Do you honestly believe they’re going to undergo some sort of moral awakening or suddenly decide to change their ways if you grant them even more freedom to prioritize themselves? There's no reason to think they wouldn't just repeat the cycle instead of working toward the common good.🙂

Harold Martin10 said:Honestly, they don't even need to change. Not the debtors, not the banks, and not the developers. In a truly free market, citizens, banks, and builders all find ways to profit—the only ones consistently losing out are the politicians.

Keep this in mind—this whole mess would have been significantly smaller if the government hadn't used its regulatory muscle to inflate the housing bubble in the first place. If the Federal Government had reached out to the IMF back in 2008 and pushed through the necessary reforms, we’d be looking at a stable, growing economy today. Instead, we've spent five years slowly sliding toward a decline, just delaying the inevitable. Rather than fixing the foundation, the Federal Government has stuck to "socially sensitive" policies since 2008 just to win votes—even though we all know that approach isn't socially sensitive at all in the long run, considering it leads straight to debt and painful stagnation.

The state was the one with the authority to pop that real estate bubble before it got too big, yet they did the exact opposite. And aside from a few lucky outliers, it wasn't the developers, bankers, or debtors who profited in the long term—it was the politicians.

If you ask me, I’d strip the state of as much power as possible. It’s pretty clear that in the US, we lack the actual mechanisms to hold our politicians accountable. And let's face it: it's better to have no regulation at all than to have the kind of disastrous regulation we've actually dealt with.

urbanotter said:I feel like you're being a bit contradictory here.
How exactly did the government use its power to blow up the housing bubble?🤷

I mean, the government doesn't own all the residential properties, nor were they going around buying up houses and driving up prices themselves.

Your argument feels a bit too broad; it's hard to tell which specific properties or sectors you're actually referring to.

First, you argue against government intervention, but then you turn around and criticize them for not using that very power effectively.
All this talk about the free market sounds a lot like the same old mantras and demagoguery we've been hearing for the last twenty years—rhetoric that hasn't produced results, but instead has landed us in this catastrophic situation.

You mentioned that in the long run, it wasn't the banks, the developers, or the average citizens who profited, but only the politicians.
I find that quite difficult to wrap my head around, so it would be helpful if you could elaborate on that.😉

The one point where I completely agree with your post is regarding our lack of accountability. We simply don't have enough mechanisms to control our politicians. There's far too much tolerance for their mistakes, the public tends to be incredibly forgetful—hardly remembering what happened even four years ago—and the whole system lacks transparency, which just opens the door wide for corruption.

driftingjackal5 said:Libertarianism views freedom through the lens of property rights—basically, it’s all about tiers of privilege. Who owns what, and why? Who gets to claim a life, and based on what? The inevitable conclusion here is that the individual actually living that life holds the ultimate right to it. If you don't see it that way, then Objectivism really doesn't have much to do with libertarianism at all. Besides, Ayn Rand openly despised libertarians like Murray Rothbard... so I'm not sure why you're even bringing him up in the same breath unless you're just trying to discredit libertarian "references"...

Look, let’s get one thing straight—I'm not trashing this as some revolutionary new idea I'm dismissing *a priori*. That’s not how I roll. The reality is that every single capitalist state—from around 1870 right up through the end of WWII—hit a wall where they were forced to roll out social programs. They had no choice... it was inevitable. They ended up expanding that whole "minimal state" liberal concept just because they had to. So, calling the concept flawed isn't just my opinion—it's an *a posteriori* fact... it actually happened.

Honestly, you’re pretty far off here—libertarianism, by this modern definition, is actually a relatively recent addition to political theory. You could argue that the real starting point for modern libertarianism was Murray Rothbard's manifesto "for a New Liberty" back in 1973... that's where he breaks down the core concepts that really separate libertarianism from classical liberalism. First off, it comes down to the philosophical foundation. Classical liberalism is essentially built on utilitarian philosophy. Those guys argue that capitalism and individual freedom are good mainly because they produce the best results compared to other ideologies. Libertarianism, though? It's based on two moral pillars—individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle. In plain English: libertarianism pushes for individual freedom because it's the most moral position to take, whereas classical liberalism just sees it as the most useful one. That's a massive distinction...

Before the whole "state-run education" thing took over, honestly, hardly anyone even went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were sitting somewhere between 1% and maybe 10% at most in some developed areas. Whatever schooling actually existed was tied directly to the Church—which, let’s be real, is about as far from a libertarian institution as you can get...

Look, your whole argument completely ignores the fact that the 19th century was the era of the Industrial Revolution. Before that kicked in, most people were illiterate simply because they were stuck doing backbreaking labor every single day—they didn't have the time or the capacity to even think about sending kids to school. Farm kids—who made up basically everyone back then—were out in the fields working alongside their parents instead of sitting in a classroom. It was the Industrial Revolution itself, which massively spiked productivity, that finally allowed kids from poor families to actually get an education instead of spending their entire lives working the land. For example, look at the stats in the US... between 1850 and 1900, literacy rates shot up from 20% to 95% in a tiny window of time, and that was BEFORE public schooling even existed. In fact, once public schools were actually introduced, literacy rates actually DROPPED by a few percentage points and just stayed stuck there ever since...

I already laid out my basic objections—like how people insist that all personal wealth is just the direct result of one's own labor. It’s obviously not... anyone sitting on capital can hire others and profit from their work—that’s literally the core of capitalism. Honestly, it'd be pretty funny to see some libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that principle, just so some kid doesn't get a head start in life thanks to their ancestors' hard work.

This is pure socialist logic. Seriously, do you even know how to define what capital actually is or where it comes from? What are people without capital supposed to do to get some? Is labor itself a form of capital? Since you're throwing these questions around, maybe try defining your terms properly before we keep going.

driftingjackal5 said:Look, PLEASE explain to me how an open, free market could possibly "hurt" consumers—and how in a free market anyone can "dictate" what you choose to buy? 🙂

urbanotter said:It’s actually quite simple.
They’re essentially playing on consumer psychology, targeting people who are feeling the squeeze on their wallets by pushing these cheap, imported goods that honestly leave a lot to be desired when it comes to quality.

It feels like we’re stuck in a bit of a losing battle lately. When you look at our domestic manufacturers, they’re essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. They are constantly weighed down by heavy taxes and a massive mountain of regulatory costs that just keep piling up. Meanwhile, we’re seeing an endless wave of imports flooding the market from countries where the tax burdens are practically nonexistent and the labor costs are a fraction of what we pay here. It makes it nearly impossible for a local business to stay competitive on price when they're playing by such different sets of rules.
When you look at the big picture, this kind of policy really guts domestic manufacturing, which inevitably leads to people losing their jobs. It’s a domino effect—once those positions vanish, the average person's purchasing power just evaporates. I’ve seen it happen in several Rust Belt cities where once-thriving industrial hubs suddenly turned into ghost towns; families who used to be self-sufficient find themselves struggling to make ends meet, often relying heavily on their parents for support or leaning on government assistance just to get by.

When you look at what trade actually means between two nations—basically the exchange of goods and services—it becomes pretty clear where we stand. Right now, our exports only account for about half of what we’re bringing in through imports. Until we can find a way to balance that scale and flip the script, I don't see us changing any course; we're essentially stuck on this current trajectory.

While globalization has certainly succeeded in opening up the floodgates for the free movement of goods and capital, it hasn't quite delivered on its promise to level the playing field regarding business conditions or wage standards. It’s an interesting paradox to observe, really; we see this massive push for the seamless flow of products and investment across borders, yet there remains such a heavy emphasis on protecting the mobility of labor and people. I remember reading an analysis once that pointed out how much more friction exists when you try to move talent compared to moving commodities, and it feels like that imbalance still defines our modern economy.
The only people truly reaping the rewards from this entire setup are the capital owners—the ones who architected the system in the first place and, if they ever feel threatened, aren't afraid to defend their interests with hired mercenaries or actual weapons.

The other participants in this era of globalization and free markets are essentially facing two outcomes: they either see their standard of living steadily erode, or they manage to scrape by with just enough profit to barely pull themselves out of the poverty they were stuck in.

urbanotter said:It’s actually quite simple.
They’re essentially playing on consumer psychology, targeting people who are feeling the squeeze on their wallets by pushing these cheap, imported goods that honestly leave a lot to be desired when it comes to quality.

It feels like we’re stuck in a bit of a losing battle lately. When you look at our domestic manufacturers, they’re essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. They are constantly weighed down by heavy taxes and a massive mountain of regulatory costs that just keep piling up. Meanwhile, we’re seeing an endless wave of imports flooding the market from countries where the tax burdens are practically nonexistent and the labor costs are a fraction of what we pay here. It makes it nearly impossible for a local business to stay competitive on price when they're playing by such different sets of rules.
When you look at the big picture, this kind of policy really guts domestic manufacturing, which inevitably leads to people losing their jobs. It’s a domino effect—once those positions vanish, the average person's purchasing power just evaporates. I’ve seen it happen in several Rust Belt cities where once-thriving industrial hubs suddenly turned into ghost towns; families who used to be self-sufficient find themselves struggling to make ends meet, often relying heavily on their parents for support or leaning on government assistance just to get by.

When you look at what trade actually means between two nations—basically the exchange of goods and services—it becomes pretty clear where we stand. Right now, our exports only account for about half of what we’re bringing in through imports. Until we can find a way to balance that scale and flip the script, I don't see us changing any course; we're essentially stuck on this current trajectory.

While globalization has certainly succeeded in opening up the floodgates for the free movement of goods and capital, it hasn't quite delivered on its promise to level the playing field regarding business conditions or wage standards. It’s an interesting paradox to observe, really; we see this massive push for the seamless flow of products and investment across borders, yet there remains such a heavy emphasis on protecting the mobility of labor and people. I remember reading an analysis once that pointed out how much more friction exists when you try to move talent compared to moving commodities, and it feels like that imbalance still defines our modern economy.
The only people truly reaping the rewards from this entire setup are the capital owners—the ones who architected the system in the first place and, if they ever feel threatened, aren't afraid to defend their interests with hired mercenaries or actual weapons.

The other participants in this era of globalization and free markets are essentially facing two outcomes: they either see their standard of living steadily erode, or they manage to scrape by with just enough profit to barely pull themselves out of the poverty they were stuck in.

Harold Martin10 said:We can probably agree that the Federal Government has a mandate to oversee macroeconomic stability.

At one point, around 2001 or 2002, the government started ramping up its own debt. This fueled a rise in the standard of living, which encouraged people to take out mortgages. So, you had both the citizens and the government increasing their debt simultaneously. It created this positive feedback loop: GDP growth leads to better credit ratings, which leads to more borrowing, which drives more GDP growth. Naturally, people started assuming home prices would climb forever. Of course, a bubble like that *had* to burst eventually—and it did, simply because they ran out of new debtors to fund the ever-increasing levels of debt.

A lot of people today blame the borrowers, saying they should have watched the macro trends more closely, but that's a bit unrealistic—after all, those borrowers are essentially paying politicians through taxes to handle that oversight for them.

Others point the finger at the banks, but honestly, that's not really their job; they have to look out for themselves and protect their clients' savings.

It was the government's responsibility to monitor consumer debt and stop borrowing so heavily, which would have prevented the artificial spike in real estate prices caused by that temporary boost in living standards. Instead, the government borrowed as much as possible to intentionally pump up the GDP. And it's perfectly predictable that rising GDP and consumer confidence will trigger a real estate boom.

On top of that, once things started slowing down, the government rolled out various measures and incentives—which, while a smaller part of the issue, clearly shows their intent—to lure even more people into taking out loans just to keep the GDP and living standards afloat until the next election cycle.

That's why I maintain that having no regulation at all is often better than having regulation that moves in the wrong direction.

That’s exactly why I’ve always maintained that it’s far better to have no regulation at all than to be saddled with regulations that are fundamentally flawed or heading in the wrong direction. I remember watching certain local policy debates back in my hometown, where well-intentioned officials tried to fix a small issue but ended up creating a massive bureaucratic bottleneck that stifled every small business on the block. It’s much more efficient to let things breathe naturally than to implement a set of rules that actually makes the situation worse.

urbanotter said:It’s actually quite simple.
They’re essentially playing on consumer psychology, targeting people who are feeling the squeeze on their wallets by pushing these cheap, imported goods that honestly leave a lot to be desired when it comes to quality.

It feels like we’re stuck in a bit of a losing battle lately. When you look at our domestic manufacturers, they’re essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. They are constantly weighed down by heavy taxes and a massive mountain of regulatory costs that just keep piling up. Meanwhile, we’re seeing an endless wave of imports flooding the market from countries where the tax burdens are practically nonexistent and the labor costs are a fraction of what we pay here. It makes it nearly impossible for a local business to stay competitive on price when they're playing by such different sets of rules.
When you look at the big picture, this kind of policy really guts domestic manufacturing, which inevitably leads to people losing their jobs. It’s a domino effect—once those positions vanish, the average person's purchasing power just evaporates. I’ve seen it happen in several Rust Belt cities where once-thriving industrial hubs suddenly turned into ghost towns; families who used to be self-sufficient find themselves struggling to make ends meet, often relying heavily on their parents for support or leaning on government assistance just to get by.

When you look at what trade actually means between two nations—basically the exchange of goods and services—it becomes pretty clear where we stand. Right now, our exports only account for about half of what we’re bringing in through imports. Until we can find a way to balance that scale and flip the script, I don't see us changing any course; we're essentially stuck on this current trajectory.

While globalization has certainly succeeded in opening up the floodgates for the free movement of goods and capital, it hasn't quite delivered on its promise to level the playing field regarding business conditions or wage standards. It’s an interesting paradox to observe, really; we see this massive push for the seamless flow of products and investment across borders, yet there remains such a heavy emphasis on protecting the mobility of labor and people. I remember reading an analysis once that pointed out how much more friction exists when you try to move talent compared to moving commodities, and it feels like that imbalance still defines our modern economy.
The only people truly reaping the rewards from this entire setup are the capital owners—the ones who architected the system in the first place and, if they ever feel threatened, aren't afraid to defend their interests with hired mercenaries or actual weapons.

The other participants in this era of globalization and free markets are essentially facing two outcomes: they either see their standard of living steadily erode, or they manage to scrape by with just enough profit to barely pull themselves out of the poverty they were stuck in.

Amanda Allen4 said:So, what you're suggesting is that globalization is inherently destructive and the only solution is to pivot toward autarky? Is that really the case?

driftingjackal5 said:Your explanation just proves you don't have a clue about basic economics—stuff like comparative and absolute advantage, or how specialization drives progress and innovation. Seriously, go look up "comparative advantage" before you try to have an informed discussion with me. By the way, even Adam Smith talked about this, so it's pretty obvious you don't understand the "capitalism" you hate so much.

Cheap labor isn't the only comparative advantage a manufacturer can use to compete. Automation, specialization, and innovation matter way more. Basically, if someone can make something better and cheaper than you, it makes sense to import it instead of making it yourself. Same logic applies to you—if you specialize in something else and can produce it better and cheaper than anyone else, then you'll be able to export. At the end of the day, consumers always win.

You're right about one thing, though—"domestic manufacturing, burdened by taxes and fees, cannot price-compete with imports from countries where business is done with far lower taxes and levies." That’s exactly the problem. The fix isn't slamming the borders shut against foreign products (that just hits the American consumer with higher prices)—it's significantly slashing the tax burden so anyone would actually bother producing something in America. It doesn't mean quality and competitiveness happen overnight—building a successful business takes years—but without cutting those taxes, it’s never happening. "Closing borders" and "high tariffs" aren't just primitive mercantilism; they run directly counter to the policy the Federal Government has been pushing for decades to join organizations based on eliminating tariffs and promoting free trade.

It feels like all these followers and devotees of guys like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are ultimately the ones who steered us right into this mess we're in today.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that you possess such a deep well of knowledge, even if that expertise has left us navigating a situation where an exit strategy feels almost impossible to find.

Low labor costs aren't the only way a manufacturer can hold their own against the competition. In my experience, much more critical factors like automation, niche specialization, and constant innovation tend to drive the real value. To put it simply, if someone else out there can manufacture a product both cheaper and better than you can, then it actually makes sense to import that item rather than wasting resources trying to build it domestically. Following that same logic, if you can pivot to specialize in a different area where you can produce goods more efficiently and with higher quality than your rivals, you’ll find yourself in a great position to export. At the end of the day, the consumer is always the one who comes out on top.

It feels like we've been stuck listening to the same theoretical mantras, recycled logic, and empty demagoguery for twenty years now. It’s a cycle that never yields actual results, and honestly, it's exactly why we find ourselves in such a massive mess—to borrow a phrase from that former thief who used to run the show as Prime Minister.

You’ve hit on a crucial point there—local manufacturers, absolutely crushed by heavy taxes and regulatory burdens, simply can't compete on price with imports from countries where the tax overhead is a fraction of what we deal with here. That really is the heart of the issue. I don't think the answer lies in slamming our borders shut against foreign goods, because that just ends up punishing the American consumer with higher prices at the checkout counter. Instead, the real fix is a massive reduction in the tax burden; otherwise, nobody is going to find it worthwhile to actually build anything on American soil. Of course, quality and global competitiveness don't just appear overnight—building a truly successful business takes years of grit and investment—but without cutting those taxes, that progress will never happen. Relying on "closed borders" or "high tariffs" isn't just a primitive form of mercantilism; it also flies in the face of the very economic policies the Federal Government has been pursuing for decades as we've worked to integrate into a global system built on free trade and the removal of customs barriers.

It feels like I’m just listening to the same broken record over and over again. Honestly, I’ve been hearing this exact same lamentation for twenty years now, and yet, I don't see any actual progress being made. If anything, it feels like we’re just sliding backward.
To be honest, I find myself leaning toward a much more straightforward, almost primitive approach to politics—one that focuses on establishing truly equal trade relations between nations. I would take that over our current system any day. The way things are running right now feels like it’s actively working against the interests of our community, serving only to line the pockets of a tiny handful of individuals while the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that the economic policies of the American government are actually working, or that we’ve become a successful nation with a bright outlook for the future?

If that’s really how you see things, then I think you might be missing the bigger picture here. You seem to be overlooking the harsh reality of our current situation and where we're headed, a point that our honorable Secretary of the Treasury actually conceded quite candidly during his address this evening.

I can't help but feel that our current political landscape is steering us toward a sort of "elite league," where prosperity and profit seem reserved exclusively for those at the very top. It feels like we’re watching a system designed to benefit the heavy hitters while everyone else—those who share similar struggles or simply want a fair shot—gets left behind. Even after years of trying to navigate these waters, so many people find themselves stuck in the same cycle of hardship and instability, never quite reaching that level playing field we were promised. It reminds me of a few years back when I was struggling to get a small business off the ground; no matter how hard I worked, the systemic hurdles felt insurmountable compared to the giants in the industry. We just seem to be spinning our wheels while the powerful continue to pull ahead.

urbanotter said:It feels like all these followers and devotees of guys like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are ultimately the ones who steered us right into this mess we're in today.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that you possess such a deep well of knowledge, even if that expertise has left us navigating a situation where an exit strategy feels almost impossible to find.

Low labor costs aren't the only way a manufacturer can hold their own against the competition. In my experience, much more critical factors like automation, niche specialization, and constant innovation tend to drive the real value. To put it simply, if someone else out there can manufacture a product both cheaper and better than you can, then it actually makes sense to import that item rather than wasting resources trying to build it domestically. Following that same logic, if you can pivot to specialize in a different area where you can produce goods more efficiently and with higher quality than your rivals, you’ll find yourself in a great position to export. At the end of the day, the consumer is always the one who comes out on top.

It feels like we've been stuck listening to the same theoretical mantras, recycled logic, and empty demagoguery for twenty years now. It’s a cycle that never yields actual results, and honestly, it's exactly why we find ourselves in such a massive mess—to borrow a phrase from that former thief who used to run the show as Prime Minister.

You’ve hit on a crucial point there—local manufacturers, absolutely crushed by heavy taxes and regulatory burdens, simply can't compete on price with imports from countries where the tax overhead is a fraction of what we deal with here. That really is the heart of the issue. I don't think the answer lies in slamming our borders shut against foreign goods, because that just ends up punishing the American consumer with higher prices at the checkout counter. Instead, the real fix is a massive reduction in the tax burden; otherwise, nobody is going to find it worthwhile to actually build anything on American soil. Of course, quality and global competitiveness don't just appear overnight—building a truly successful business takes years of grit and investment—but without cutting those taxes, that progress will never happen. Relying on "closed borders" or "high tariffs" isn't just a primitive form of mercantilism; it also flies in the face of the very economic policies the Federal Government has been pursuing for decades as we've worked to integrate into a global system built on free trade and the removal of customs barriers.

It feels like I’m just listening to the same broken record over and over again. Honestly, I’ve been hearing this exact same lamentation for twenty years now, and yet, I don't see any actual progress being made. If anything, it feels like we’re just sliding backward.
To be honest, I find myself leaning toward a much more straightforward, almost primitive approach to politics—one that focuses on establishing truly equal trade relations between nations. I would take that over our current system any day. The way things are running right now feels like it’s actively working against the interests of our community, serving only to line the pockets of a tiny handful of individuals while the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that the economic policies of the American government are actually working, or that we’ve become a successful nation with a bright outlook for the future?

If that’s really how you see things, then I think you might be missing the bigger picture here. You seem to be overlooking the harsh reality of our current situation and where we're headed, a point that our honorable Secretary of the Treasury actually conceded quite candidly during his address this evening.

I can't help but feel that our current political landscape is steering us toward a sort of "elite league," where prosperity and profit seem reserved exclusively for those at the very top. It feels like we’re watching a system designed to benefit the heavy hitters while everyone else—those who share similar struggles or simply want a fair shot—gets left behind. Even after years of trying to navigate these waters, so many people find themselves stuck in the same cycle of hardship and instability, never quite reaching that level playing field we were promised. It reminds me of a few years back when I was struggling to get a small business off the ground; no matter how hard I worked, the systemic hurdles felt insurmountable compared to the giants in the industry. We just seem to be spinning our wheels while the powerful continue to pull ahead.

Zagorec88 said:The bottom line is that anarcho-capitalism—and honestly, just how the world works today—allows people to team up whenever they want. You can start your own factories, set up farming cooperatives, or just live life on your own terms. I guess that kind of thing would happen in an anarcho-capitalist system too, so you could basically do anything you’d be able to do under anarcho-communism. Maybe.

So, I guess the main difference comes down to what I've picked up from talking to some other communists out there. Apparently, in anarcho-communism, you aren't actually allowed to work for your own benefit, trade for profit, or even hire people. It’s like, totally forbidden to enter into any kind of agreement where all parties actually agree on the terms. You know what I mean?

How can anarcho-communism even work without eventually sliding back into a market economy? I mean, someone is always going to step up—someone who’s just a bit sharper or has some super niche skill set—and they'll naturally start demanding more in exchange for what they bring to the table. It seems almost inevitable, I guess.

If workers were to take over factories, that would basically be stealing property from shareholders and owners.

So, anarcho-communism involves force and prohibitions, whereas anarcho-capitalism is based on mutual consent, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. That’s just how it looks from a libertarian perspective.

driftingjackal5 said:I mean, seriously, how can you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years actually look anything like what we'd call "capitalism" or "free enterprise"?

driftingjackal5 said:

driftingjackal5 said:

Charles Lopez3 said:How do you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years look anything like what could be called "capitalism" or "free enterprise"? It's blindingly obvious to me that you're just a run-of-the-mill populist demagogue—a total economic illiterate who couldn't explain something as basic as supply and demand without looking at Wikipedia, let alone any advanced economic theory or paradigm. Like Murray Rothbard once wrote: "It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, ultimately, a specialized discipline that most people consider a 'dull science.' But it is entirely irresponsible to hold loud and reckless opinions on economic concepts while still in that state of ignorance."

Enough with the off-topic rambling... I'm asking you nicely to stop commenting if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the THREAD.