MenKlash

I’d prefer the term statism, but I agree with you.

I mean if you’re gonna criticize the whole capitalist system sure.

1. The Federal Reserve purchases assets and thereby increasing bank reserves.
2. The banks expand credit and consequently the money supply.
3. All prices are raised, and the rate of interest is artificially lowered.
4. Misleading signals to businessmen starts to emerge, causing them to make malinvestments.
5. Businesses overinvest in capital goods and underinvest in consumer goods.
6. As the “time preference” of the public have not really got lower, consuming is preferred over saving.
7. There is a lack of enough saving-and-investment to buy all the new capital goods.
8. Then, “depression” originates in order to reestablish the consumer’s old time-preference proportions.
9. The banks return to their natural and desired course of credit expansion…

FIAT money is independent of capitalism. Its coercive existence leads to distortions of relative prices and the production system, as government and its central bank will always tend to be inflationary.

Eat the Fed!

The taxpayers and the taxmen.

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.

In other words there’s no hope

Privatize everything.

VLLC!

The free market is not, as the social Darwinists imagine, a struggle between rich and poor, strong and weak. It is the principal means by which human beings cooperate in order to live. If each of us had to produce all his food and shelter by himself, almost no one could survive. The existence of large-scale society depends absolutely on social cooperation through the division of labor.

The idea of a “social contract” is flawed in the sense that it is not a contract at all, as it is unilateral in nature.

Voting and taxation do not necessarily imply explicit consent with how government (the monopoly on violence) works.

The dilemma is how you define harming others and what implies being intolerant to an idea rather than a person holding that idea.

Economists of the classical school were right to define a monopoly as a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting. Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even the attempt should be regretted since it is a great benefit to consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function. The term “monopoly price” has no effective meaning in real market settings, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change. A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas.

Amazon is just another big company that benefits from corporatocracy.

I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Qué bueno, che

Fair enough. You’re still not replying to my opinion anyway.

I can infere that you’re a very close-minded person. You’re criticizing the “tone” of my opinion instead of its content.

You’re literally accusing me of “russian propagandist” instead of replying to my personal argument.

Argumentum ad hominem.

I’m a citizen by coercion of the government, not by voluntary means.

A “social contract” cannot be used to justify the existence of an oligarchy of politicians and its actions because they will initiate force against those who do not wish to enter into that contract.

In fact, the so-called “social contract” is not a contract at all because it is unilateral in nature. Voting and taxation don’t necessarily imply consent with how government works, as there is no explicit consent of every citizen.

Such indiscriminate uncritical love of representative democracy is a threat to liberty itself.

Not a fan of Trump, but there was never a “social contract” in the first place.

Under TRUE capitalism the market is free but regulated as needed.

The market can’t be free if it’s regulated. Any intromission of the State in any voluntary exchange is stepping in the natural rights of its citizens.

We don’t live in real capitalism, there is no regulation, the oligarchy has captured the agencies that were supposed to regulate the market.

The agencies are the oligarchy. The politicians and lobbyists benefit each other by the existence of regulations, taxation, subsidies, FIAT money, intellectual property, public licenses, monopolical privileges, etc.

Yes, we don’t live in “real capitalism” (that is, in a free-market setting), we live in a corporatocracy.

Part of a larger quote, but I agree with it.

I don’t like representative democracy.