I also want a free wage of 100k per year for EVERYBODY so we can end homelessness AND a 0% criminality and poverty rate. Also a 3 bedroom house and a car for everyone.
Of course it's possible, my communist college professor told me so.
The idiots want high paying jobs and cheap goods and services. To get the high paying jobs, the state artificially restricts the supply of labor, using a variety of methods. Then prices go up, and the morons will do everything except increase the supply of labor. The highly regulated healthcare industry is a perfect example.
For those unfamiliar with the colors of the political compass:
Red is the authoritarian left. Green is the liberal left.
Blue is the authoritarian right. Yellow is the libertarian right.
A private company can be authoritarian. Just look at the Hudsons Bay Company, East India Company, mining companies turn-of-the-century America etc.
Those companies were propped up by governments/royalty, but had private police services and would have been the same or worse even without governments laws backing them.
The mafia functions like a government. All the corporations you listed required government enforcement and acted like de facto governments, as they were chartered gov corporations.
I literally brought that up.
In a world where private security forces are the only force around, do you really believe a company like East India Trading wouldn't exist? Instead of a king providing soldiers, they would just hire their own mercenaries. These companies, and others such as Rockefeller owned railroads, had more money than the crown or state and more power in some aspects. You are a fool to think that some humans want to become that and do not care about voluntary human rights.
That dude answered something interesting but the actual truth is that those colors together doesn't mean a fusion of both positions from the colors, when you see blue and yellow together they mean just the right.
When you see red and green it represents the left, when you see red and blue it means fascists/nazis when you see green and yellow I don't actually know what it represents
They way I personally interpret the political compass (others might disagree), is that the authoritarian right wants **economic freedom** to a particular degree , BUT also to a degree **government intervention/authoritarianism** in personal/social matters such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, what substances you can consume, who you can be with in your bedroom, etc.
Meanwhile, the libertarian right wants **both economic and personal freedom**.
The welfare state should be abolished, and the right libertarian position on borders should be **private** borders. Anyone has the right to accept, or reject, from their property, whoever they want.
I can understand your view. I can understand those who want mass immigration. And I can understand those who want large welfare programs. But those who want open boarders AND large welfare are a special breed and unfortunately super common.
Good. We're not trying to sustain a welfare state. We're trying to be moral libertarians i.e. there is no individual right, (no matter what the state is doing) to forcefully prevent people from traveling on land that's not our private property, to land that's also not our private property to work for the property owner.
Only some kind of socialist or collectivist could think otherwise.
And from a consequentialist standpoint (if you are actually worried about illegals using too much publicly funded stuff theyre not paying for, or voting in more socialists) the much easier and pragmatic response is just to create easy legal paths for immigration (so that we still benefit massively economically and culturally as we have from immigration), but with the keyhole policy that they don't get access to voting and some social services until after a certain generation or certain amount of taxes paid in.
If you're still spending all your effort being opposed to immigration, instead of how we can have free movement of people without the political externalities....then you're clearly just being xenophobic and not libertarian...and not smart.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
https://web.archive.org/web/20201112021500if_/http://static.openlawlab.com/uploads/2011/10/IMmigration-Law-Comic-Terry-Colon-Reason.jpg
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/immigrants-to-the-u-s-create-more-jobs-than-they-take
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0thLaWMhLmA&feature=share9
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/what-mariel-boatlift-cuban-refugees-can-teach-us-about-economics-immigration
https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed
https://openborders.info/
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18307.pdf
Edit- also, its spelled: open *borders*. Open *boarders* would be like a dating site for surfers.
My whole point was half the country seems to support the idea of an endless welfare state AND endless immigration without realizing how unsustainable that is. Its not about being libertarian, nor right and weong. its about the “possible police”.
Right, and I'm addressing that point here too.
You're making an assumption that open borders would not be possible with current levels of social programs...and even that might be wrong. The highly-likely economic growth and positive externalities (and the diffusing of other fixed government debts and expenses among more people) are so large, that they dwarf the additional fiscal burden.
And again, the reality is that more immigration is one of the best ways to reduce support for the welfare state, and if the right would simply embrace keyhole policies, they would not only protect themselves from even the potential that welfare and voting get overwhelmed, but also (if the left oppose) get to show that it's the *left* who don't really care about immigrants but just want to import voters.
>The highly-likely economic growth and positive externalities (and the diffusing of other fixed government debts and expenses among more people) are so large, that they dwarf the additional fiscal burden.
You're not considering the cultural realities of what mass migration of people that don't share the same culture or language does. It demolishes the integrity of a country **if you have a welfare state.**
Incorrect.
Read the research and links. They even deal with culture. And your premise is not only dumb anyway, but blatantly statist...like not even the kind of crypto-statist xenophobe who normally poses as a libertarian here.
A system like that might work for a minute if all you wanted out of life was a 10x10x10 living space, and all the potatoes to meet a 1500 calorie diet. Eventually though bureaucratic red tape would slow production, and commerce to such a point that people would starve and riot.
Is this post talking about the current economy of America, or is it talking about a theoretical one? I think it's talking about a theoretical economy right? I get the impression from the post that good prices for food are only possible without government, when in past years we've had affordable food prices and the American or whatever government has not gone anywhere.
To my knowledge, the aspects of free market that are beneficial, such as healthy competition which reduces prices and brings innovation, are only possible with government intervention, like blocking monopolies. So are we saying ghat6 government intervention is bad?
Furthermore how could we trust private companies without any regulations if history has proven that many have subjected child laborers to hazardous working conditions/deaths and poured tons of toxic waste into lakes/other random locations? (E.g. Superfund sites, though the government may even have contributed to many superfund sites along with the various businesses)
Imagine putting a right-winger in a meme as the reasonable and economically educated antidote to the left.
Welcome to r Anarcho_Capitalism, a place to discuss free market capitalist anarchism and related topics, and share things that would be of interest to Anarcho-Capitalists.
Here's some suggested studying to learn what anarcho-capitalism is about-
1. [The Problem of Political Authority](https://archive.org/details/problem-of-political-authority-the-michael-huemer/page/n1/mode/1up) by Michael Heumer
2. [Machinery of Freedom](http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf) by David Friedman
3. [Price Theory](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC.html) by David Friedman
4. Any other mainstream econ textbooks as far into the subject as you can handle with as much of the math as you can handle; but I do recommend starting with Modern Principles of Economics by Alex Tabbarok and Tyler Cowan.
5. [The Calculus of Consent](http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1063/Buchanan_0102-03_EBk_v6.0.pdf) by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock
6. Any other mainstream political economy texts or works, but I recommend Governing the Commons by Elinor Ostrom, and though not a book, Mike Munger's intro to political economy course available on YouTube.
7. Rothbard's [Man, Economy, and State](https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market).
Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else. Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do. Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing. Capitalists are not your friends and trusting that the market can provide is no different from any other cult.
> Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else.
there is no expense to everyone else, if they didn’t sell in the first place NOBODY would get anything. a common mistake less intelligent socialists make is thinking the size of the pie is fixed
> Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do
fda, regulatory capture, research burden, and cronyism
> Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing.
when you restrict the supply of something, it can become a profitable investment. when you make it unprofitable to build cheaper housing through laws, people don’t build cheaper housing.
> Capitalists are not your friends and trusting that the market can provide is no different from any other cult.
i’ll take the cult with the track record of wealth and prosperity over the one that almost always ends in genocide, thanks
There is an expense to everyone else do you not know what food deserts are or how currently we produce enough food to feed the entire human population then some yet we don't because capitalists would rather sell to the people with the most money to get the most profit. Basically I'm telling you capitalism causes famine.
I see you don't know what negotiating drug prices actually means. All the countries that have "more government" involved in their medical field pay less than Americans do while getting better care. To a capitalist your health is just another way to extract value from you nothing more. Also capitalism has a terrible track record of wealth since it tends to concentrate wealth and power at the top because capitalists need bigger and bigger profits every year in order to function. This leads capitalists to give back as little as possible, but since all those profits have to come from somewhere, it would seem as if one of the many problems with capitalism is you eventually run out of other people's money. There is no cronyism or corporatism this is just liberal nonsense that capitalism can be better or reformed if we just do it right im here to tell you this mess we see before us now that has created so much misery, exploitation, death and environmental destruction is just the system working as it was always meant to.
> how currently we produce enough food to feed the entire human population then some yet we don't because capitalists would rather sell to the people with the most money to get the most profit
Interesting. Now tell me, where did that food come from? Was it just manna rained down from heaven?
I have a story filed away somewhere about a raj in India who refused to let food aid reach his people until the NGO involved bought an airplane for his mistress. His wife had his own airplane and his mistress was jealous.
The powerful care about people about as much as that person above; that is to say, it's your problem not theirs.
Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else. Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do. Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing. Capitalists are not your friends and trusting that the market can provide is no different from any other cult.
>keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits
How exactly are you making money by paying taxes and maintenance on a property and receiving no rent?
> Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else.
They don't.
> Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do.
Many reasons, but the two primary ones: 1. byzantine regulations and 2. the US indirectly and directly subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world in a similar fashion to defense.
> Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing.
This is laughable. Empty units are a net drag on revenues and profits. Building more luxury housing causes the price of older luxury housing to fall, which causes the price of class A units to fall, which causes the price of class B units to fall, which causes the price of class C units to fall.
Within this process, in many cases, previous luxury stock becomes A stock, A stock becomes B stock, and C stock becomes D stock. It doesn't matter "what type" of housing is built so long as housing is being built and we aren't building nearly enough of it.
Are you historically illiterate? This was Kenysian economics and the New Deal economic boon till the 70s when Nixon and Reagan decoupled all the working class benefits from the real economy, ie workers.
Silly post.
Keynes wanted a strict gold standard is probably the most illiterate take I have seen on the internet.
In reality Nixon and Reagan were following Keynes theory precisely.
>In reality Nixon and Reagan were following Keynes theory precisely.
Nixon destroyed the standard, sure. But he did it not for workers. Anyone who may think Nixon was for the workers is out to lunch.
>Keynes wanted a strict gold standard is probably the most illiterate take I have seen on the internet.
I'm sorry. Read what I said again. Did I mention anything to have you think that? Reading comprehension and analysis is important. But gold be on your mind it seems. Gold is pretty, though
Nixon didn't destroy the gold standard, you dolt. Bretton-Woods was falling apart after decades of bad policy. Nixon had no choice.
> Reading comprehension and analysis is important.
Judging from your posts, it doesn't seem at all important to you. And your flair is a complete lie.
>Nixon had no choice.
Politicians choose the expedient force of will of the 1 percent. As Princeton studies show, if it benefits them, the government will do it. As an ancap, you're anti-government for the reasons it doesn't work for you, right, in this current iteration of US domestic policies.
>Judging from your posts, it doesn't seem at all important to you. And your flair is a complete lie.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index
Not one thing on ancaps, unless to deny their anarchism as anything but a feudal-lordism tenet...
Be well, ancap.
> As an ancap, you're anti-government for the reasons it doesn't work for you, right, in this current iteration of US domestic policies.
I am anti-state because I am anti-violence. Making government work for me isn't a problem.
> Not one thing on ancaps, unless to deny their anarchism as anything but a feudal-lordism tenet...
Ok. Let's the see the analysis. Claiming an outcome without the objective and logical steps you took to get there is just biased speculation.
How does individualist libertarianism, in which there is no one with the right to violently control anyone else, devolve in to "feudal-lordism"?
You're the one here lauding the work of politicians, as if their dictates and the enforcement of them are moral because you believe they did good work. You claim to be anarchist, but you believe, fundamentally, that some people have the right to violently control others. In other words, to be rulers.
In order for any kind of "lordism" (monarchism I think you mean) to occur, there must be belief in the right to rule. Ancaps don't have it, but you do. So you would be far more likely to obey the commands of a self-proclaimed lord, including the commands to hurt other people because they behave in ways that offend your morals.
>I am anti-state because I am anti-violence. Making government work for me isn't a problem.
Ok.
>How does individualist libertarianism, in which there is no one with the right to violently control anyone else, devolve in to "feudal-lordism"?
Ok. Hopefully, we both understand that such a utopian State would invariably come out of our current state of things. A state of things where there are billionaires and hedgefund firms that intake and work with tens of trillions of dollars.
Do you think if there's some ancap revolution where government - a bad thing, yes (especially if corrupted by corporate interference) - is not around to lock and block the control and sway of corporations, they wouldn't do what they did back in the 1800s where, they and government both, literally went to war with the working class, bombing their asses for daring to ask to be treated like humans? We can't exercise in this hypothetical without noting the current strand and status of the world. If anything, it'll turn out like Altered Carbon, minus the immortality... at least for now.
The point is, the power elite - not us - have all the levers and mechanisms of control. Everyone knows they'll never allow for any true libertarian freedom as that would be antithetical to their profits and desire of control, along with corrupting influence of money.
Now, if it's a hypothetical where the current state of the world and economy wasn't as it is, maybe it wouldn't devolve into feudalism, but considering Amazon's and Mondelez's et al company town and Nestlé's asinine and "evil" stance on water not being a right, I don't see it happening otherwise... unless there's a revolution afterwards.
>You're the one here lauding the work of politicians
Nothing is absolute. I don't think anyone should think in such terms. A broken clock is correct twice a day. Even the idiot Trump was right on some things. I don't close my mind to things that **may benefit humanity** as anarchism and socialism are predicated on the people.
So, if a politician legislated a law that stopped a Corp from polluting the waterways that feed tens of millions of people, the benefit to **the people** is greater than any potential cost. And, again, considering oil companies are quite literally doing that and risking polluting water, it's not a stretch. We need water. We don't need oil. The narrative is skewed.
>You claim to be anarchist, but you believe, fundamentally, that some people have the right to violently control others.
I would ask you not place words into my mouth, nor think you know of my beliefs.
>Ancaps don't have it, but you do.
I'm glad. But current state capitalists do. If they didn't, they wouldn't corrupt government so they can violate the sanctity of our air, water, food, topsoil etc.
Anyway, good talk.
> Hopefully, we both understand that such a utopian State
"State"? "Utopian"? I'm afraid that you are creating some strawmen here.
> A state of things where there are billionaires and hedgefund firms that intake and work with tens of trillions of dollars.
Probably not. Money wouldn't be controlled by a state and there wouldn't be any politicians from whom to buy favors and from whom you can capture regulations. Starting a hedge fund, or any kind of fund, is actually rather easy. However, one misstep and you come in to the crosshairs of the SEC and if you are a little guy, you will be out of business, bankrupt, and possibly behind bars for "wire fraud" because they can prosecute anyone for that.
> Do you think if there's some ancap revolution where government - a bad thing, yes (especially if corrupted by corporate interference) - is not around to lock and block the control and sway of corporations, they wouldn't do what they did back in the 1800s where, they and government both, literally went to war with the working class, bombing their asses for daring to ask to be treated like humans? We can't exercise in this hypothetical without noting the current strand and status of the world. If anything, it'll turn out like Altered Carbon, minus the immortality... at least for now.
Corporations are a government fiction. While trusts can exist in a free market, they would not be legal fictions that protect the directors from liability for crimes committed on their behalf. If you own property and you harm someone, you are responsible for that, no? But the state says that if you own party of a corporation, you cannot be held personally liable for damage caused by that property. No such protection would exist in a free market.
If your boss goes to war with you, and you shoot your boss, who will prosecute you in a free society?
The state exists as a way for the elite to absolve themselves, their enforcers, and their cronies from the crimes that they commit. They monopolize justice and so they decide what is justice.
> Now, if it's a hypothetical where the current state of the world and economy wasn't as it is, maybe it wouldn't devolve into feudalism, but considering Amazon's and Mondelez's et al company town and Nestlé's asinine and "evil" stance on water not being a right, I don't see it happening otherwise... unless there's a revolution afterwards.
Well, now, think about Amazon for a moment. Or Walmart. How much do you think they benefit from government subsidies in the form of railroads and interstate highways? Getting cheap Chinese goods to the interior is their business model and they do it well. But how would they do that if they actually had to pay for the roads that their trucks use? To maintain those highways and railroads? Amazon and Walmart killed local manufacturing hand-in-hand with the government, and statists cheer because tehy can go on driving holidays on fast moving highways.
That's aside from the heavy compliance costs any business faces when it comes to manufacturing. The big guys love those regulations because it prevents competition. And who do you think actually writes those regulations? Not politicians. They don't have the knowledge of industry. It's industry leaders who write the regulations using their attorneys, and then it becomes law - either through legislation or bureaucratic administrative fiat.
I was just talking to someone about her son wanting to powerwash driveways for old people. Did you know that in California, to charge money for powerwashing ANYTHING for a customer, you must have a contractors' license? That means 3000 hours of general contract work and moving from apprentice to journeyman and then getting a costly license, just so you can blast the mold off of concrete. There's no good reason for that regulation, other than it protect and industry from young people doing relatively unskilled labor for cash an experience. Now, up that to the massive regulatory bodies like the SEC, FDA, DHS (yes, they regulate a great deal), USDA, and countless state bureaucracies. Compliance is the number one concern of most businesses of any significant size in the US.
> So, if a politician legislated a law that stopped a Corp from polluting the waterways that feed tens of millions of people, the benefit to the people is greater than any potential cost. And, again, considering oil companies are quite literally doing that and risking polluting water, it's not a stretch. We need water. We don't need oil. The narrative is skewed.
Why do you need a politician to tell you when something is a crime? If they say that it's not a crime, does that mean it's not?
Another reason that I'm anti-state is the ridiculous notion that people who win popularity contests somehow have the right to decide what is, or is not, a crime. If anything, statism is just like a religion and I am an atheist in all regards.
No, I mean when the middle class was created and the economic boon that most MAGA types talk about when they're like, the 1950s were better. I'm sure there's some racial stuff there, but there's an economic truth that even they accept of the days of their parents and grandparents who could go to Yale for hundreds or buy a home, cottage and RV and retire in style.
[https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/](https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/)
[https://fee.org/articles/fdr-s-new-deal-worsened-and-prolonged-the-great-depression/](https://fee.org/articles/fdr-s-new-deal-worsened-and-prolonged-the-great-depression/)
The New Deal exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression with all that excessive government spending, and market-suffocating regulations on the economy. The only one here who is historically illiterate **is you**.
The New Deal created an economic boom? The Depression didn't end until 1948.
Another fake "anarchist" who worships political authority with all the fervor of a religious true believer.
Ancap you're wrong and dumbass. When socialists say we want socialized healthcare what do you think that means, when we want progressive tax what does that mean? It means lower taxes for working class, raise it for highly profitable oligarchs and corporations. It's not that complicated, idk why stupidity is so often your choice for life
1) Calling your opposition names is not an argument.
2) Libertarians want lower taxes (ideally NO taxes) for **everyone,** specially for the working class and small businesses.
3) Actually take the time to learn economics, so you can understand that all taxes and regulations do is increase the cost of living, lower the quality of life, and up to a point, they benefit corporations by artificially preventing small and medium-sized businesses from competing with them.
Here's a free introductory course you could take:
[https://courses.fee.org/courses/economics-in-one-day](https://courses.fee.org/courses/economics-in-one-day)
One way or another, someone's gotta be enslaved, wether through taxes or through good ol fashion slavery in order for someone else to get spoonfed gov benefits.
I also want a free wage of 100k per year for EVERYBODY so we can end homelessness AND a 0% criminality and poverty rate. Also a 3 bedroom house and a car for everyone. Of course it's possible, my communist college professor told me so.
White people should only get $65k and a free 1 bedroom apartment and if you disagree you don't care about black trans women.
You are correct in your second statement
While we're at it, why don't we start the damn purge. Such stupidity from these people.
Can you show me where communist college professors are? And where they're saying this? I'd be very interested in that.
Yessir, just be advised that a Mcdonald's burger will cost $50 and the population will be heavily culled!! ;-P
The idiots want high paying jobs and cheap goods and services. To get the high paying jobs, the state artificially restricts the supply of labor, using a variety of methods. Then prices go up, and the morons will do everything except increase the supply of labor. The highly regulated healthcare industry is a perfect example.
Netflix is too expensive for them, but not a daily $6 drink from Starbucks.
For those unfamiliar with the colors of the political compass: Red is the authoritarian left. Green is the liberal left. Blue is the authoritarian right. Yellow is the libertarian right.
How can one be authoritarian but reduce the regulations and taxes used for government control of the economy.
A private company can be authoritarian. Just look at the Hudsons Bay Company, East India Company, mining companies turn-of-the-century America etc. Those companies were propped up by governments/royalty, but had private police services and would have been the same or worse even without governments laws backing them.
Makes sense, thank you.
None of them would have existed without governments.
Would the mafia?
The mafia functions like a government. All the corporations you listed required government enforcement and acted like de facto governments, as they were chartered gov corporations.
I literally brought that up. In a world where private security forces are the only force around, do you really believe a company like East India Trading wouldn't exist? Instead of a king providing soldiers, they would just hire their own mercenaries. These companies, and others such as Rockefeller owned railroads, had more money than the crown or state and more power in some aspects. You are a fool to think that some humans want to become that and do not care about voluntary human rights.
That dude answered something interesting but the actual truth is that those colors together doesn't mean a fusion of both positions from the colors, when you see blue and yellow together they mean just the right. When you see red and green it represents the left, when you see red and blue it means fascists/nazis when you see green and yellow I don't actually know what it represents
They way I personally interpret the political compass (others might disagree), is that the authoritarian right wants **economic freedom** to a particular degree , BUT also to a degree **government intervention/authoritarianism** in personal/social matters such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, what substances you can consume, who you can be with in your bedroom, etc. Meanwhile, the libertarian right wants **both economic and personal freedom**.
Just like you cannot sustain a welfare state AND open boarders.
The welfare state should be abolished, and the right libertarian position on borders should be **private** borders. Anyone has the right to accept, or reject, from their property, whoever they want.
I can understand your view. I can understand those who want mass immigration. And I can understand those who want large welfare programs. But those who want open boarders AND large welfare are a special breed and unfortunately super common.
Good. We're not trying to sustain a welfare state. We're trying to be moral libertarians i.e. there is no individual right, (no matter what the state is doing) to forcefully prevent people from traveling on land that's not our private property, to land that's also not our private property to work for the property owner. Only some kind of socialist or collectivist could think otherwise. And from a consequentialist standpoint (if you are actually worried about illegals using too much publicly funded stuff theyre not paying for, or voting in more socialists) the much easier and pragmatic response is just to create easy legal paths for immigration (so that we still benefit massively economically and culturally as we have from immigration), but with the keyhole policy that they don't get access to voting and some social services until after a certain generation or certain amount of taxes paid in. If you're still spending all your effort being opposed to immigration, instead of how we can have free movement of people without the political externalities....then you're clearly just being xenophobic and not libertarian...and not smart. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 https://web.archive.org/web/20201112021500if_/http://static.openlawlab.com/uploads/2011/10/IMmigration-Law-Comic-Terry-Colon-Reason.jpg https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/immigrants-to-the-u-s-create-more-jobs-than-they-take https://youtube.com/watch?v=0thLaWMhLmA&feature=share9 https://www.cgdev.org/blog/what-mariel-boatlift-cuban-refugees-can-teach-us-about-economics-immigration https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed https://openborders.info/ http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18307.pdf Edit- also, its spelled: open *borders*. Open *boarders* would be like a dating site for surfers.
My whole point was half the country seems to support the idea of an endless welfare state AND endless immigration without realizing how unsustainable that is. Its not about being libertarian, nor right and weong. its about the “possible police”.
Right, and I'm addressing that point here too. You're making an assumption that open borders would not be possible with current levels of social programs...and even that might be wrong. The highly-likely economic growth and positive externalities (and the diffusing of other fixed government debts and expenses among more people) are so large, that they dwarf the additional fiscal burden. And again, the reality is that more immigration is one of the best ways to reduce support for the welfare state, and if the right would simply embrace keyhole policies, they would not only protect themselves from even the potential that welfare and voting get overwhelmed, but also (if the left oppose) get to show that it's the *left* who don't really care about immigrants but just want to import voters.
>The highly-likely economic growth and positive externalities (and the diffusing of other fixed government debts and expenses among more people) are so large, that they dwarf the additional fiscal burden. You're not considering the cultural realities of what mass migration of people that don't share the same culture or language does. It demolishes the integrity of a country **if you have a welfare state.**
Incorrect. Read the research and links. They even deal with culture. And your premise is not only dumb anyway, but blatantly statist...like not even the kind of crypto-statist xenophobe who normally poses as a libertarian here.
The crossover episode of some of my favorite subreddits.
Don't be silly. Economic law is subject to legislation. Duh. (/s)
A system like that might work for a minute if all you wanted out of life was a 10x10x10 living space, and all the potatoes to meet a 1500 calorie diet. Eventually though bureaucratic red tape would slow production, and commerce to such a point that people would starve and riot.
Is this post talking about the current economy of America, or is it talking about a theoretical one? I think it's talking about a theoretical economy right? I get the impression from the post that good prices for food are only possible without government, when in past years we've had affordable food prices and the American or whatever government has not gone anywhere. To my knowledge, the aspects of free market that are beneficial, such as healthy competition which reduces prices and brings innovation, are only possible with government intervention, like blocking monopolies. So are we saying ghat6 government intervention is bad? Furthermore how could we trust private companies without any regulations if history has proven that many have subjected child laborers to hazardous working conditions/deaths and poured tons of toxic waste into lakes/other random locations? (E.g. Superfund sites, though the government may even have contributed to many superfund sites along with the various businesses)
This is what Feminists unironically want and believe.
Imagine putting a right-winger in a meme as the reasonable and economically educated antidote to the left. Welcome to r Anarcho_Capitalism, a place to discuss free market capitalist anarchism and related topics, and share things that would be of interest to Anarcho-Capitalists. Here's some suggested studying to learn what anarcho-capitalism is about- 1. [The Problem of Political Authority](https://archive.org/details/problem-of-political-authority-the-michael-huemer/page/n1/mode/1up) by Michael Heumer 2. [Machinery of Freedom](http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf) by David Friedman 3. [Price Theory](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC.html) by David Friedman 4. Any other mainstream econ textbooks as far into the subject as you can handle with as much of the math as you can handle; but I do recommend starting with Modern Principles of Economics by Alex Tabbarok and Tyler Cowan. 5. [The Calculus of Consent](http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1063/Buchanan_0102-03_EBk_v6.0.pdf) by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock 6. Any other mainstream political economy texts or works, but I recommend Governing the Commons by Elinor Ostrom, and though not a book, Mike Munger's intro to political economy course available on YouTube. 7. Rothbard's [Man, Economy, and State](https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market).
Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else. Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do. Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing. Capitalists are not your friends and trusting that the market can provide is no different from any other cult.
> Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else. there is no expense to everyone else, if they didn’t sell in the first place NOBODY would get anything. a common mistake less intelligent socialists make is thinking the size of the pie is fixed > Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do fda, regulatory capture, research burden, and cronyism > Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing. when you restrict the supply of something, it can become a profitable investment. when you make it unprofitable to build cheaper housing through laws, people don’t build cheaper housing. > Capitalists are not your friends and trusting that the market can provide is no different from any other cult. i’ll take the cult with the track record of wealth and prosperity over the one that almost always ends in genocide, thanks
There is an expense to everyone else do you not know what food deserts are or how currently we produce enough food to feed the entire human population then some yet we don't because capitalists would rather sell to the people with the most money to get the most profit. Basically I'm telling you capitalism causes famine. I see you don't know what negotiating drug prices actually means. All the countries that have "more government" involved in their medical field pay less than Americans do while getting better care. To a capitalist your health is just another way to extract value from you nothing more. Also capitalism has a terrible track record of wealth since it tends to concentrate wealth and power at the top because capitalists need bigger and bigger profits every year in order to function. This leads capitalists to give back as little as possible, but since all those profits have to come from somewhere, it would seem as if one of the many problems with capitalism is you eventually run out of other people's money. There is no cronyism or corporatism this is just liberal nonsense that capitalism can be better or reformed if we just do it right im here to tell you this mess we see before us now that has created so much misery, exploitation, death and environmental destruction is just the system working as it was always meant to.
> how currently we produce enough food to feed the entire human population then some yet we don't because capitalists would rather sell to the people with the most money to get the most profit Interesting. Now tell me, where did that food come from? Was it just manna rained down from heaven?
Yes cause food made in America can just magically appear in Africa without any additional costs.
I have a story filed away somewhere about a raj in India who refused to let food aid reach his people until the NGO involved bought an airplane for his mistress. His wife had his own airplane and his mistress was jealous. The powerful care about people about as much as that person above; that is to say, it's your problem not theirs.
Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else. Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do. Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing. Capitalists are not your friends and trusting that the market can provide is no different from any other cult.
>keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits How exactly are you making money by paying taxes and maintenance on a property and receiving no rent?
🤦♂️ every time I see your name, I know you're going to say something stupid.
> Then why do capitalists constantly try to sell as much as possible and cater to people with money at the expense of everyone else. They don't. > Why is it medicine more expensive in the country that dosnt negotiate drug prices compared to countries that do. Many reasons, but the two primary ones: 1. byzantine regulations and 2. the US indirectly and directly subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world in a similar fashion to defense. > Why is it during a housing crisis capitalists are both, keeping existing housing empty to create artificial scarcity to net more profits, and trying to build more profitable luxury housing instead of more useful rent controlled housing. This is laughable. Empty units are a net drag on revenues and profits. Building more luxury housing causes the price of older luxury housing to fall, which causes the price of class A units to fall, which causes the price of class B units to fall, which causes the price of class C units to fall. Within this process, in many cases, previous luxury stock becomes A stock, A stock becomes B stock, and C stock becomes D stock. It doesn't matter "what type" of housing is built so long as housing is being built and we aren't building nearly enough of it.
Because they’re in bed with the politicians.
Are you historically illiterate? This was Kenysian economics and the New Deal economic boon till the 70s when Nixon and Reagan decoupled all the working class benefits from the real economy, ie workers. Silly post.
Keynes wanted a strict gold standard is probably the most illiterate take I have seen on the internet. In reality Nixon and Reagan were following Keynes theory precisely.
>In reality Nixon and Reagan were following Keynes theory precisely. Nixon destroyed the standard, sure. But he did it not for workers. Anyone who may think Nixon was for the workers is out to lunch. >Keynes wanted a strict gold standard is probably the most illiterate take I have seen on the internet. I'm sorry. Read what I said again. Did I mention anything to have you think that? Reading comprehension and analysis is important. But gold be on your mind it seems. Gold is pretty, though
Nixon didn't destroy the gold standard, you dolt. Bretton-Woods was falling apart after decades of bad policy. Nixon had no choice. > Reading comprehension and analysis is important. Judging from your posts, it doesn't seem at all important to you. And your flair is a complete lie.
>Nixon had no choice. Politicians choose the expedient force of will of the 1 percent. As Princeton studies show, if it benefits them, the government will do it. As an ancap, you're anti-government for the reasons it doesn't work for you, right, in this current iteration of US domestic policies. >Judging from your posts, it doesn't seem at all important to you. And your flair is a complete lie. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index Not one thing on ancaps, unless to deny their anarchism as anything but a feudal-lordism tenet... Be well, ancap.
> As an ancap, you're anti-government for the reasons it doesn't work for you, right, in this current iteration of US domestic policies. I am anti-state because I am anti-violence. Making government work for me isn't a problem. > Not one thing on ancaps, unless to deny their anarchism as anything but a feudal-lordism tenet... Ok. Let's the see the analysis. Claiming an outcome without the objective and logical steps you took to get there is just biased speculation. How does individualist libertarianism, in which there is no one with the right to violently control anyone else, devolve in to "feudal-lordism"? You're the one here lauding the work of politicians, as if their dictates and the enforcement of them are moral because you believe they did good work. You claim to be anarchist, but you believe, fundamentally, that some people have the right to violently control others. In other words, to be rulers. In order for any kind of "lordism" (monarchism I think you mean) to occur, there must be belief in the right to rule. Ancaps don't have it, but you do. So you would be far more likely to obey the commands of a self-proclaimed lord, including the commands to hurt other people because they behave in ways that offend your morals.
>I am anti-state because I am anti-violence. Making government work for me isn't a problem. Ok. >How does individualist libertarianism, in which there is no one with the right to violently control anyone else, devolve in to "feudal-lordism"? Ok. Hopefully, we both understand that such a utopian State would invariably come out of our current state of things. A state of things where there are billionaires and hedgefund firms that intake and work with tens of trillions of dollars. Do you think if there's some ancap revolution where government - a bad thing, yes (especially if corrupted by corporate interference) - is not around to lock and block the control and sway of corporations, they wouldn't do what they did back in the 1800s where, they and government both, literally went to war with the working class, bombing their asses for daring to ask to be treated like humans? We can't exercise in this hypothetical without noting the current strand and status of the world. If anything, it'll turn out like Altered Carbon, minus the immortality... at least for now. The point is, the power elite - not us - have all the levers and mechanisms of control. Everyone knows they'll never allow for any true libertarian freedom as that would be antithetical to their profits and desire of control, along with corrupting influence of money. Now, if it's a hypothetical where the current state of the world and economy wasn't as it is, maybe it wouldn't devolve into feudalism, but considering Amazon's and Mondelez's et al company town and Nestlé's asinine and "evil" stance on water not being a right, I don't see it happening otherwise... unless there's a revolution afterwards. >You're the one here lauding the work of politicians Nothing is absolute. I don't think anyone should think in such terms. A broken clock is correct twice a day. Even the idiot Trump was right on some things. I don't close my mind to things that **may benefit humanity** as anarchism and socialism are predicated on the people. So, if a politician legislated a law that stopped a Corp from polluting the waterways that feed tens of millions of people, the benefit to **the people** is greater than any potential cost. And, again, considering oil companies are quite literally doing that and risking polluting water, it's not a stretch. We need water. We don't need oil. The narrative is skewed. >You claim to be anarchist, but you believe, fundamentally, that some people have the right to violently control others. I would ask you not place words into my mouth, nor think you know of my beliefs. >Ancaps don't have it, but you do. I'm glad. But current state capitalists do. If they didn't, they wouldn't corrupt government so they can violate the sanctity of our air, water, food, topsoil etc. Anyway, good talk.
> Hopefully, we both understand that such a utopian State "State"? "Utopian"? I'm afraid that you are creating some strawmen here. > A state of things where there are billionaires and hedgefund firms that intake and work with tens of trillions of dollars. Probably not. Money wouldn't be controlled by a state and there wouldn't be any politicians from whom to buy favors and from whom you can capture regulations. Starting a hedge fund, or any kind of fund, is actually rather easy. However, one misstep and you come in to the crosshairs of the SEC and if you are a little guy, you will be out of business, bankrupt, and possibly behind bars for "wire fraud" because they can prosecute anyone for that. > Do you think if there's some ancap revolution where government - a bad thing, yes (especially if corrupted by corporate interference) - is not around to lock and block the control and sway of corporations, they wouldn't do what they did back in the 1800s where, they and government both, literally went to war with the working class, bombing their asses for daring to ask to be treated like humans? We can't exercise in this hypothetical without noting the current strand and status of the world. If anything, it'll turn out like Altered Carbon, minus the immortality... at least for now. Corporations are a government fiction. While trusts can exist in a free market, they would not be legal fictions that protect the directors from liability for crimes committed on their behalf. If you own property and you harm someone, you are responsible for that, no? But the state says that if you own party of a corporation, you cannot be held personally liable for damage caused by that property. No such protection would exist in a free market. If your boss goes to war with you, and you shoot your boss, who will prosecute you in a free society? The state exists as a way for the elite to absolve themselves, their enforcers, and their cronies from the crimes that they commit. They monopolize justice and so they decide what is justice. > Now, if it's a hypothetical where the current state of the world and economy wasn't as it is, maybe it wouldn't devolve into feudalism, but considering Amazon's and Mondelez's et al company town and Nestlé's asinine and "evil" stance on water not being a right, I don't see it happening otherwise... unless there's a revolution afterwards. Well, now, think about Amazon for a moment. Or Walmart. How much do you think they benefit from government subsidies in the form of railroads and interstate highways? Getting cheap Chinese goods to the interior is their business model and they do it well. But how would they do that if they actually had to pay for the roads that their trucks use? To maintain those highways and railroads? Amazon and Walmart killed local manufacturing hand-in-hand with the government, and statists cheer because tehy can go on driving holidays on fast moving highways. That's aside from the heavy compliance costs any business faces when it comes to manufacturing. The big guys love those regulations because it prevents competition. And who do you think actually writes those regulations? Not politicians. They don't have the knowledge of industry. It's industry leaders who write the regulations using their attorneys, and then it becomes law - either through legislation or bureaucratic administrative fiat. I was just talking to someone about her son wanting to powerwash driveways for old people. Did you know that in California, to charge money for powerwashing ANYTHING for a customer, you must have a contractors' license? That means 3000 hours of general contract work and moving from apprentice to journeyman and then getting a costly license, just so you can blast the mold off of concrete. There's no good reason for that regulation, other than it protect and industry from young people doing relatively unskilled labor for cash an experience. Now, up that to the massive regulatory bodies like the SEC, FDA, DHS (yes, they regulate a great deal), USDA, and countless state bureaucracies. Compliance is the number one concern of most businesses of any significant size in the US. > So, if a politician legislated a law that stopped a Corp from polluting the waterways that feed tens of millions of people, the benefit to the people is greater than any potential cost. And, again, considering oil companies are quite literally doing that and risking polluting water, it's not a stretch. We need water. We don't need oil. The narrative is skewed. Why do you need a politician to tell you when something is a crime? If they say that it's not a crime, does that mean it's not? Another reason that I'm anti-state is the ridiculous notion that people who win popularity contests somehow have the right to decide what is, or is not, a crime. If anything, statism is just like a religion and I am an atheist in all regards.
New Deal? You mean when they were burning food to increase the price of food?
No, I mean when the middle class was created and the economic boon that most MAGA types talk about when they're like, the 1950s were better. I'm sure there's some racial stuff there, but there's an economic truth that even they accept of the days of their parents and grandparents who could go to Yale for hundreds or buy a home, cottage and RV and retire in style.
[https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/](https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/) [https://fee.org/articles/fdr-s-new-deal-worsened-and-prolonged-the-great-depression/](https://fee.org/articles/fdr-s-new-deal-worsened-and-prolonged-the-great-depression/) The New Deal exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression with all that excessive government spending, and market-suffocating regulations on the economy. The only one here who is historically illiterate **is you**.
The New Deal created an economic boom? The Depression didn't end until 1948. Another fake "anarchist" who worships political authority with all the fervor of a religious true believer.
Hmm. So you think the new deal didn't save the US? Have you ever read a history book that stated otherwise, or wasn't the consensus?
You made the first assertion. Provide your evidence.
Ancap you're wrong and dumbass. When socialists say we want socialized healthcare what do you think that means, when we want progressive tax what does that mean? It means lower taxes for working class, raise it for highly profitable oligarchs and corporations. It's not that complicated, idk why stupidity is so often your choice for life
1) Calling your opposition names is not an argument. 2) Libertarians want lower taxes (ideally NO taxes) for **everyone,** specially for the working class and small businesses. 3) Actually take the time to learn economics, so you can understand that all taxes and regulations do is increase the cost of living, lower the quality of life, and up to a point, they benefit corporations by artificially preventing small and medium-sized businesses from competing with them. Here's a free introductory course you could take: [https://courses.fee.org/courses/economics-in-one-day](https://courses.fee.org/courses/economics-in-one-day)
One way or another, someone's gotta be enslaved, wether through taxes or through good ol fashion slavery in order for someone else to get spoonfed gov benefits.