Who are any of us, really? We all have our public life, our private life…
And your secret life. The one that defines you.
Every person who think that their vote (in a representative democracy) matters, is a victim of the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion, that is, the state.
However, what makes the state different from other coercive entities, such as organized crime groups, is that it enjoys some form of popular legitimacy. In other words, in addition to enslaving its inhabitants physically, it needs to secure their mental servitude as well.
But not about the humanity, dignity, and freedom of people.
Are you referring to the recognition of the problems involving those concepts or the solutions proposed to fix them?
We can have different approaches and views about a variety of problems, but the concepts would be the same.
It doesn’t mean we should always make an agreement about how to solve them, but the idea of treating others who don’t think like me as “monsters” just because they are different is populist and dishonest.
Hating ideas is not the same as hating people.
The problem is that they fall in a false dilemma.
Evaluating the world and the people around you with labels so generic as “left wing” or “right wing” is not useful at all. Another problem is being too politicized, as I think it can damage your relationships with others.
Better it goes into government so at least people can vote to change it.
We can’t change it. Politicians would still have their monopolical powers because they help each other. Don’t trust the government. Billionaires not only influence it, they also receive help from them.
In a short-term, yes. Long-term? A complete disaster.
You mean all these private international businesses have a hard time going around worldwide regulations?
Quite the contrary; the State by lobbying, subsidies and “international aids” is actually benefiting the giant businesses, as the coercion made by the State harms the SME’s and we the common people to trade with other countries.
Basically, I’m describing corporatocracy (the State is dominated by corporate business interests).
Do you know, that even with the sanctions, russia exports and imports (almost) as usual, because internationally nobody cares? And if sb cares, they will make a daughtercompany in no time which does the trade?
By “russia exports and imports” (fallacious use of collective nouns), I’ll interpret it as businesses affected by the sanctions.
As I said before: “Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics”. You can’t just infere those sanctions are not working from having analyzed statistics and economic history. You need first an economic theory that tries to explain how the economy works by identifying the causal relationships between economic actions and events.
I’d recommend you to read about Mises’s Human Action (praxeology based on methodological individualism).
Man wtf. We had over 100 Years of almost free market and look where we are now.
I don’t know what you interpret as “free market”, but the mere existance of a Monopoly of Violence, lobbying, manipulation of money, state licenses, blah, blah, blah… is not free at all.
Businesses in germany have to pay a fuckload of taxes and still get richt as fuck.
Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics.
If there is no free market on a national scale, than there is a almost anarchytical free market on an international scale.
What about protectionism, tariffs, special licenses, international regulations, “common goods”, the World Bank Group, the IMF, and very much any kind of coercion made by “Welfare” States?
And they have to pay back what they destroyed. Like everybody else, when you destroy sth, either on purpose or without, you need to pay.
“Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another’s property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive.”
the people can rise up against the capitalists to stop them from poisoning our only habitat we are all wholly dependent upon
Are you ignoring all the labor these “capitalists” and their workers do to provide you the goods we all wholly demand upon? All of this is done by social cooperation between both of them by voluntary association.
We can stop the self-destructive madness of demanding infinite growth carved out of the ass of a finite world.
This would work if the price system would actually work as intended (free from the intervention of the State) to distribute all the scarce resources in a free-market setting.
Greta is doing the right thing in the face of Armageddon
By wanting the Monopoly of Violence to step in? To call the international organizations (spoilers: they don’t care about us) to intervene in foreign countries?
Almost everyone else will either continue begging the sociopathic oligarch polluters to stop
They can actually do that because of the existence of “common goods” and of the monopolical privileges granted by the same State, such as subsidies, regulations discreetly affecting SMEs, the lack of enforcement of private property to protect those “common goods”, etc.
but those are usually the same people that get angry at others for claiming the “free capital market” isn’t the cure for the many self-inflicted human crises caused by the “free capital market.”
On the contrary; they love subsidies, they love intellectual property, they love FIAT money, they love the monopolical privileges: basically, their activities depend entirely on the mere existence of corporatocracy.
They going to vote from their own Bolsonaro and fuck every miniority over there.
It’s interesting how you are saying that minorities need “positive rights” (monopolical privileges from the State) to participate in society, violating the individual rights of the others.
Here in Argentina, science funding is not working because the investments made in any research are too stupid: (some examples from CONICET)
“Los Cumpleaños en los Mc Donalds.”
“El fútbol como espectáculo de masas.”
“Jóvenes travestis en la escuela secundaria.”
“Vidas Queer, nazismo y dictadura: sexualidad en textos alemanes y argentinos.”
Sorry, but I don’t love the taste of the boot of the monopoly of violence (the State) and it’s robbery (taxation), mass murder (war) and slavery (conscription).
Bureaucracy, corruption, FIAT money, intellectual property, common goods, the welfare state… The idea of an oligarchy of politicians controlling and regulating the economy and our private lifes in the name of “democracy” and “the common good” is actually helping those billionaries we BOTH hate so much.
Social democracy is practically the same thing as corporatocracy, but with a little of populism. On the other hand, “any step toward socialism is a step toward economic irrationality”.
Tell me how you don’t know the difference between corporatocracy and capitalism without telling me how you don’t know the difference between corporatocracy and capitalism.
I’d prefer the term statism, but I agree with you.