Philosophy of Freedom

The idea that you need a "prelude" to freedom is total nonsense. It’s basically saying we need personal stupidity to achieve personal liberty, or social ignorance to secure individual freedom within a society.

Look, if I actually understand the consequences of my actions, I’m going to choose the path that’s right—simply because it’ll either make my life better or, at the very least, cause the least amount of harm. But, if I decide to chase some fleeting pleasure even though I know it’s going to screw me over, then I’m not actually in control—I’m just a slave to that impulse. I'm not free.

And honestly, the same logic applies to society acting as a single organism.

It’s almost a paradox: the more a person truly understands the world and themselves, the more they make the "correct" choices, which arguably makes them less "free" in the traditional sense. We like to tell ourselves that freedom is found in the *way* we go about completing a task, but the truth is, the more someone knows, the more easily they can identify the absolute best way to do it.

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.

driftingjackal5 said:For instance, according to the latest census, almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. But isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality based on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live by that in their daily lives? Like, why would kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday be out on the streets tomorrow shouting demands for "free education"?

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? 🤷

Where has all the American libertarianism gone?

He vanished sometime in the 19th century.

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.

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? 🤷

Is it because taking from those who work and sharing it with those who can't is actually fair and just?

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? 🤷

Man, what kind of "exploitation" are you even talking about? Honestly, hearing this Marxist nonsense over and over makes me want to gag. Look, a "worker" is just an individual with the exact same rights as anyone else. The only difference between a "worker" and a "boss" is that instead of investing capital, the worker invests their labor. The "boss" pays for that labor at a price set by supply and demand in a free market. An unskilled worker isn't going to command a massive salary simply because there's a huge supply of unskilled labor and low demand. A highly skilled pro can sell their time for way more, especially if demand is high. That's why a janitor earns less while a software engineer makes the big bucks. There's zero exploitation happening if both sides—the boss and the worker—enter the deal voluntarily and by mutual agreement. Besides, even an unskilled worker can level up if they actually put in the effort to learn new skills. Education doesn't just happen in some university classroom; it happens constantly whenever someone tries to get better at their craft. Back in the day, people called it an apprenticeship—where an unskilled worker would grind for a tiny or symbolic wage until they mastered the trade and could become a master themselves. That was how people with zero practical knowledge or access to formal schooling were able, given enough ambition, to build a better life for themselves and their families. Today, all that's been killed off by "helpful" government intervention—everything from mandatory minimum wages to licensing laws and that horrific tax burden that makes starting even a small business impossible unless it clears $3,000 a month right out of the gate, which is just unrealistic for most industries. And honestly, your whole "evil industrialist" trope sounds like something straight out of a Mark Twain novel... Get with the times and join us in the 21st century.

Btw, for everyone here who hasn't been completely brainwashed by Marxist doctrine, I highly recommend this video. It lays out exactly why a government-mandated minimum wage is actually the most destructive thing possible for the poorest and most vulnerable people in society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

Alright, I've said my piece and there's no point beating a dead horse, even if repeating yourself is basically a forum ritual.

Just a quick heads-up regarding your ideological preaching: stop obsessing over how things work in the USA. We live in Europe, and let's be real, the USA hasn't been the undisputed gold standard for quite a while now.

And honestly? Try to quit using phrases like "makes me want to puke," "nonsense," or "brainwashed" just because someone holds an opinion different from yours. I know that's not the typical way people talk on sites like Reddit, but it's obvious that hardly anyone actually reads posts on places like forum.hr, let alone joins the debate.

driftingjackal5 said:If you read that text and decide you're totally on board, you gotta ask yourself: do the people you call "leaders" actually believe what they wrote? And if they don't, why the hell are you following them? I’m convinced the only way to shift the political and social vibe is to start with the individual, not by shouting opinions from some political soapbox. It’s about getting individuals to realize that begging the state—or whoever’s in power—for handouts is straight-up immoral, and actually understanding *why* it's wrong.

Take the last census, for instance. Almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. Isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality built on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live like that? Why is it that kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday are out on the streets tomorrow screaming for "free education"? Let's break down what "free education" actually means for a second. There are really only two options: either they think teachers should work for zero pay, or they think the state needs to provide them with fair compensation. But can the state pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Obviously not. The state is just a monopoly on the legal use of force. When they respond to this demand for "free schooling," they’re going to use coercion—using taxes to snatch property from one person to give it to another. In this case, they’d strip all taxpayers to fund the education of the people demanding it. That’s the state initiating force on their behalf. Yet, the people demanding "free school" would never dream of breaking into their neighbor's house and grabbing a few thousand bucks to pay for their tuition. So why is it okay when the state does it for them?

I completely agree with that bolded point. In fact, that is exactly why I am here: to convince as many people as possible.
Politics is a reflection of the people, and better politics won't arrive until the people themselves improve.
Unfortunately, most citizens expect the government to take the initiative... it's just the leftover mentality of the old system. 🤷

driftingjackal5 said:If you read that text and decide you're totally on board, you gotta ask yourself: do the people you call "leaders" actually believe what they wrote? And if they don't, why the hell are you following them? I’m convinced the only way to shift the political and social vibe is to start with the individual, not by shouting opinions from some political soapbox. It’s about getting individuals to realize that begging the state—or whoever’s in power—for handouts is straight-up immoral, and actually understanding *why* it's wrong.

Take the last census, for instance. Almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. Isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality built on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live like that? Why is it that kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday are out on the streets tomorrow screaming for "free education"? Let's break down what "free education" actually means for a second. There are really only two options: either they think teachers should work for zero pay, or they think the state needs to provide them with fair compensation. But can the state pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Obviously not. The state is just a monopoly on the legal use of force. When they respond to this demand for "free schooling," they’re going to use coercion—using taxes to snatch property from one person to give it to another. In this case, they’d strip all taxpayers to fund the education of the people demanding it. That’s the state initiating force on their behalf. Yet, the people demanding "free school" would never dream of breaking into their neighbor's house and grabbing a few thousand bucks to pay for their tuition. So why is it okay when the state does it for them?

The majority gives politicians legitimacy; nobody gives a burglar legitimacy. 🙂

Otherwise, I am a proponent of capitalism, but I believe education is one of those areas that should remain social and accessible to everyone. I think it is humane and decent to provide equal starting conditions for all (as much as possible), and after that, whatever anyone builds within those conditions is theirs to keep.
And for equal starting conditions, accessible education is key... if someone chooses not to go to school, that's fine... but if they end up working for low wages because of it, they simply have to deal with that. No one is obligated to share their salary with them.🤷

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.

Wait, what? And then what happens to the property? Are we supposed to just ritually burn it all once someone kicks the bucket? 😂

Come on, libertarians, let’s hear your brilliant plan. 🍿

Charles Campbell7 said: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. ☕

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.

That depends entirely on who owns the store. 🤷

Drew Lee7 said:Wait, what? And then what happens to the property? Are we supposed to just ritually burn it all once someone kicks the bucket? 😂

Come on, libertarians, let’s hear your brilliant plan. 🍿

That depends entirely on who owns the store. 🤷

Could you maybe elaborate on that a bit more?

Charles Campbell7 said:In your book, if someone robs a local convenience store and hands out some of the cash to people in need, are they just a thief or are they a saint? ☕

Well, if you ask me—and this is just how my own moral compass spins—it probably depends on how much they actually give away and how well-off the shop owner was to begin with. But strictly speaking about the law? Yeah, that person is a thief.

You claim the government takes from the rich to give to the poor. I honestly can't think of a single real-world example where that actually happens.

Look, just because the social safety net here in America isn't working quite the way it should doesn't mean we ought to scrap the whole thing. Maybe we should just try to fix it instead. 🤷
And I mean, even our somewhat lacking social programs still manage to provide some support to the unemployed and those struggling...

Kimberly Cox59 said:Well, if you ask me—and this is just how my own moral compass spins—it probably depends on how much they actually give away and how well-off the shop owner was to begin with. But strictly speaking about the law? Yeah, that person is a thief.

You claim the government takes from the rich to give to the poor. I honestly can't think of a single real-world example where that actually happens.

Look, just because the social safety net here in America isn't working quite the way it should doesn't mean we ought to scrap the whole thing. Maybe we should just try to fix it instead. 🤷
And I mean, even our somewhat lacking social programs still manage to provide some support to the unemployed and those struggling...

So, I guess if the kiosk owner happens to be Bill Gates, it's perfectly fine for the poor to just rob them blind?

Harold Martin10 said:Because taking from people who actually work and handing it over to those who don't is fair and just?

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?

driftingjackal5 said:Man, what kind of exploitation are you even talking about? It honestly makes me sick to listen to this Marxist nonsense over and over again.

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.🙄

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.🙄

Well, who *isn't* working? You've got the unemployed—most of whom could probably find low-wage jobs if they had to, though we still end up importing labor for those roles—along with early retirees who essentially "earned" their benefits through corruption, people sitting in administrative roles or at state-owned companies where positions were handed out based on political connections, and certain folks who received subsidies that were never properly monitored afterward.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a social safety net, but I am against an overbearing, hyper-socialized state like the one we see here in the US (where the government's share of the GDP is over 40%, making it one of the top five countries for total tax burden). Education and basic healthcare are definitely things that should be socially supported—but all those other "social rights" that make up the bulk of the budget? Those really need to be trimmed down.

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: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.🙄

An anarchist who actually wants a social welfare state? Oh my God... 🤦

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.🙄

Another "anarchist" pushing state solutions... Honestly, it seems to me that the philosophy of a socialist like you (and I call anyone advocating for wealth redistribution based on some imaginary "social" metric a socialist) is that it’s better for us all to be equally miserable than unequal in freedom.

Yeah, but why are there so many unskilled workers, say, in Asia? It's not that they aren't smart, they just don't have access to that kind of education because of the crushing poverty they live in.

If you actually bothered to look into this properly, you'd realize that if we're talking about China—which I assume is the focus of your obsession with "Asia"—just 50 years ago, it was almost entirely unindustrialized, rural territory. 90% of the population were poor peasants living strictly off what they could grow themselves, with zero shot at escaping that misery. Communism nearly finished them off during those massive Maoist "Great Leaps Forward." It wasn't until free enterprise managed to sneak through the back door of that massive country that it finally started making real strides forward. For instance, here's a famous case from the late seventies that proves how insane socialism and planned economies are—they nearly destroyed China:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...nsformed-china

Modern Chinese people are surging ahead precisely BECAUSE of how much free market they have, not in spite of it. You should check out this TED talk to start realizing how much those "exploited" workers actually profited and how much happier they are today than their parents were 20-30 years ago:

http://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_ch...s_workers.html

Sure, but the other option for the "worker" is unemployment and total poverty.

Nah, the second option is self-employment. In a free society where the government isn't bleeding people dry just to fund some bloated "social safety net"—where taxes for small businesses and entrepreneurs are minimal or non-existent—starting your own gig from a hobby or a skill you actually possess is a way better, more profitable move than sitting at home whining about how there are no jobs. Of course, that kind of lifestyle doesn't exist here because it can't even get off the ground... a tiny shop or startup has to pull in $6.75 monthly just to pay the government, let alone cover their own salary and all those payroll taxes for one single employee/owner. But in more liberal countries, those exact kinds of small businesses make up the biggest, healthiest part of the whole economy.

Brilliant. And how would social sciences be taught then? They don't turn a dime in profit. Astronomy? Zoology, in most cases.

Look, some professions have to be studied at specialized institutions. Fine. But for most everyday jobs—like retail, accounting, construction, all sorts of trades, or even specialized stuff like computer science and related fields—you don't need any formal degree. Honestly, a library card and a shred of willpower to learn something new is plenty.

Ah, 21st-century human capitalism, featuring the widest gap between rich and poor in history 🙄

You're mixing terms—clearly on purpose. Today's world is run by corporatism, aka neo-mercantilism—centrally controlled and partially managed markets—not laissez-faire or free entrepreneurship. Regardless, it’s a statistical fact that compared to the entire history of the human race, despite all our problems, we have the least hunger, least wars, least disease, least illiteracy, and least political inequality. Without a doubt, we're living in the most peaceful and prosperous era since humans crawled out of caves. And no matter what you think about it, the stats show this surge aligns perfectly with the start of industrialization and the rise of capitalist and quasi-capitalist economic structures.

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.

There are political factions, though they aren't exactly libertarian, that advocate for this.

http://rondetafelbeleid.nl/inheritance

Drew Lee7 said:Wait, what? And then what happens to the property? Are we supposed to just ritually burn it all once someone kicks the bucket? 😂

Come on, libertarians, let’s hear your brilliant plan. 🍿

That depends entirely on who owns the store. 🤷

Not at all; instead, the wealth would be used for the common good—according to the theories held by those self-styled meritocrats.

http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/Th...y(2543605).htm

10) To increase Inheritance Tax to 100%. No one should be able to posthumously transfer an advantage to another person of their choosing. The state should acquire All of The assets of The deceased and should reinvest them to advance The public good , particularly via education.

By the way, meritocrats tend to push "social capitalism."

driftingjackal5 Kimberly Cox59 said:An anarchist who’s actually out here pushing for a social welfare state? Oh my God... 🤦

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?

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.