MenKlash

Los estatistas dicen que, a pesar de todo, el Estado del Bienestar produce sociedades socialmente más justas. Y pretenden probarlo, porque, haciendo un empleo abusivo del concepto de «justicia», han convertido en «derechos» a satisfacer en nombre de la «justicia social», lo que no eran más que reivindicaciones propugnadas por determinados grupos políticos y sindicales.

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.

Easy money is slavery.

The existence of FIAT money (that is, the state monopoly of the money supply) is the mere source of the business cycle and the discoordination emerged in the economy.

Can we afford for everybody to try to live at the expense of everybody?

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

How can people achieve zero waste when they don’t get to choose how anything is packaged?

Waste is an unwanted by-product of production, that is, it’s composed of materials that they has purchased but hasn’t been able to transform them into the desired final good. This means it’s an expense.

The end of every entrepreneur is to reduce expenses and increase income to have a greater profit. But if they have to face multiple costs in the form of regulations and taxes, reducing pollution will no longer be a priority to them.

In a free-market society, when they don’t have to face these bureaucratic expenses and “common goods” don’t exist, producers will strive to reduce the amount of product paid for but not used, that is, pollution; AND they will have to respect the property rights of the others who would have the “ex-common goods”.

Why? Because 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 (Coase theorem).

The goal of economical management will always be elusive if “common ownership” exists.

We need thousands of companies to be forced to do zero waste perfectly.

Forced by who? By an oligarchy of politicians that are being influenced by those companies, and viceversa?

Because no government is good for the economy and society.

People don’t just randomly want new clothes every week

Did you understand the concept of spontaneous order?

They wanted because they have been bombarded with ads about it since their birth.

The goal of every ad is to associate their product and make you think about it when you have a need that can be satisfied by its use. The needs of each individual are originated mostly by the individual’s free will.

Although it’s true that ads can influence you in how you prioritize your needs, they can’t create artifical needs.

"The direction of all economic affairs is, in the market society, a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer. "

But remember, those trends are just invented by the industry to take your money.

Trends are originated by spontaneous order; corporations don’t create “artificial demand”. Instead, the industry does a market analysis and then tries to satisfy the demand for that trend by following it.

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.