Thread 17969137

>>17969137 (OP)
Can it work with a strict border policy?

>>17969137 (OP)
No. Free market with no checks and balances leads astronomical levels of disparity, social disunity and massive unrest among the population. Social market however is the best if you want a unified, developed and healthy county.

"Libertarians" (a term they fittingly stole from their communist brethren) are scum and their movement is dead now that it's been absorbed into the left, but yes I think any sane individual would like to see the state's spending drastically reduced. A functional government should not spend most of its resources on payments to the elderly and the underclass.

>>17969159
OG Classical liberals like Mises and Hayek and OG libertarians like Rothbard opposed open borders.

>>17969168
What is a "libertarian" according to you?

>>17969162
Under what principle do you claim that putting sawdust on food is bad If you don't believe in property rights?
Anyway if a company lies about the ingredients in their products, they are committing fraud which is a property rights violation. Any other company is free to spread this information about them and as companies have an interest in their reputation there is an incentive against fraud. Terrible example btw as putting sawdust in rice crispies would only increase production costs.

>>17969165
>Anything that leads to "astronomical levels of disparity" is bad
Ok so what is the acceptable threshold of "disparity" after which it is justifiable to steal and how do you arrive at it?
>"social disunity" "unified country"
Meaningless "kumbaya" word soup.

>>17969169
The state has no legitimate property and therefore crossing state boundaries without it's permission is not aggression. The state stealing from you to give money to immigrants (or anyone for that matter) or forcing you to do business with them however, is. The real problem is the lack of freedom of association (DEI, "positive discrimination" and etc) and also tariffs and other types of regulations that make it harder for people to trade with foreigners between state lines. So if there were freer trade it would be easier for them to get a job or trade with western companies and they wouldn't feel as much of a need to come here.

>>17969162
Forgot to mention in >>17970084 that any insurance agency would have every right and incentive to force the company that defrauded you to compensate you.

>>17970084
>Ok so what is the acceptable threshold of "disparity"
The threshold is basic human rights, such as free education, free healthcare, water and electricity and for those who cannot fend for themselves, a minimum salary until they are fit to work.

No, the fact Capitalists will literally destroy productive capability to increase profits, kind of points to how shit Capitalism is.
Not to mention the massive class issues, the fact Capitalism rewards sociopathic behaviour and always drives for the lowest common denominator through expansion of markets and pushing Idpol to sell identity, thus undermining civic and social norms.

>>17969159
That's how it worked by design before retarded neoliberals raped it and spawned a bastard version of it

>>17970084
>Any other company is free to spread this information about them
Until all the corporations agree to put sawdust in their food, buy up all the media, and silence anyone that tries to tell people about it.

Yes, it's the reason we have smartphones.

>>17970283
>The threshold is basic human rights
The only basic human right is the right to property, which is affirmed by every single person by doing anything with their body and belongings. Property rights are implicit in all actions.
Education, "free" healthcare, etc. are entitlements to the property of others. If electricity isn't a scarce resource, then a right to it is redundant. It is obviously a scarce resource, so conflicts over who gets to use electricity will arise. But if everyone has a right to it, then everyone gets to choose against all others. It's contradictory.

>>17970283
>mom, the communists are calling other's labor and property their human rights again!

>>17970310
You can post things online for free everywhere and anyone can read them. You can host your own server, use your phone, buy a megaphone and stand in times square. You do not need to breach property rights to do this.

>>17969137 (OP)
CAPITALISM IS THE BEST

>>17969137 (OP)
It can be providing there are laws and regulations to curtail corruption and monopolistic abuses

>>17971131
>the only human right is property
Stopped reading there

>>17969137 (OP)
The woke free market has resulted in limited Jeets and destruction of industry. No thanks. I’ll take my protectionists fascist economy thank you.

>>17969137 (OP)
This guy was made an economic advisor of Austria and there the great depression lasted till Germany made them stop existing btw

>>17971298
The right to property has a much wider scope than you think.
A person owns his/her own body, so (unconsensual) violence is a violation of property rights.
Property as a concept is required to derive transactions and contracts. If I pay you for a car you don't have, the contract fails (or alternatively, there was no contract at all) and so the resources I paid with did not have their ownership transferred from me. If you then run away, you have deprived me of my property. This rules out fraud.
Property doesn't only cover material things. The definition involves scarce resources. Labor is scarce, so it is also potential property. However, owning another living human is not allowed by property rights, because a person always possesses his/her own body, so it is inalienable, invalid to transfer. If you can stop possessing something, you can sell it, and if you can't stop, you can't sell either. It is not necessary for property to be transferrable. Since living humans are always in possession by their will, it is not transferrable, so nobody can buy another person as property, so nobody can become the owner of another person. This rules out slavery.
etc.

>>17971569
As a society the strong and the rich are supposed to care for weaker members, helping them to climb the ladder. It’s how human nature works. Without this the entire system falls apart again and again.

>>17969137 (OP)
for an economic system it's great
for a national system it's fucking awful and utterly ravages the nation as it seeks the lowest class of human to subjugate. the mutt machine

>>17969137 (OP)
Americans and the rest of the West are Federal Reserve slaves. Westoid economic dogma is just a ruse to have bankers rent seek the economy.
>uhh money creation will take place via some obscure interaction between (((independent))) central bank and the treasury
China's Central Bank is not independent, it's answerable to the CCP and they carry out window guidance.

>>17971909
Property rights are always stated coldy, matter-of-fact, but property is owned by humans, who can and often do choose to be benevolent.
Free utilities and housing is a nice thing to have, but making it your right implies it is justified to coerce people to do things they don't want to do. A right to free stuff is a right to scarce resources. In the case you don't have it, and none is unowned and available to grab, such a "right" enables you to take from others and act as if it is just. It obviously contradicts property rights.
Charity is entirely possible in a world where people truly own their stuff, by choosing out of their own volition to donate their wealth for the wellbeing of their community. True property rights simply deny coercive redistribution.

>>17970283
Education, healthcare, water, electricity etc require labour. So "having a right" to those things would imply that you are entitled to force other people to work for you and you are not.

>>17970310
And why is something like that less likely to happen if you give some people a monopoly over arbitration and the use of force? Much to the contrary, it's a lot easier to bribe state officials who are the sole providers of, for example, a service that verifies the contents of food, than all of the companies that provide such a service under a free market.

>>17971956
This is extremely vague. What does it mean to "ravage a nation" exactly? If you mean more free-market aligned nations have a higher murder rate or something like that, quite the opposite is true.

>>17972012
So should people be free to chose the money they use or not? What's your point, exactly? "Capitalism is bad because money production and lending are not ""independent"", therefore we should give some people a monopoly over the regulation of banking" ???

>>17971909
Terrific. Explain how giving some people a monopoly over the use of force and arbitration prevents "the rich not caring for weaker members". And what is your threshold for "rich", exactly? You probably make 100x more than most of the world population, does that give me a right to steal from you and give it to some random bum?

>>17971909
That works where and when the strong and the rich feel kinship with the weak.
When the strong and the rich are Jews, they aren't going to help goy peasants.
When the strong and the rich are Normans, they despise the Saxons.
When the strong and the rich are whites, they ain't gonna do shit for niggers.

>>17969137 (OP)
No, that would be serfdom.

>>17972075
>that works
What does it mean for anything to "work"? What is your theory of values and morality and your basic justification for it?

>>17972090
So "serfdom" is bad, correct? Why? Is it perhaps because it implies aggression?

>>17969137 (OP)
By restricting immigration, the government directly intervenes in labor supply, artificially making it scarce resulting in inflated labor costs.

Anti-immigration is anti-free market. If you don't support the unconditional free flow of labor and capital you're literally a communist.

>>17972142
No serfdom is good.

>>17972156
Serfdom is horrible and was considered horrible by contemporary serfs, which id why many fled it

>>17972012
>So should people be free to chose the money they use or not? What's your point, exactly? "Capitalism is bad because money production and lending are not ""independent"", therefore we should give some people a monopoly over the regulation of banking" ???
NTA but yes. It's better to trust officials who have an vested interest in protecting the nation with such powers rather than an inherently self interested class of people.

>>17972142
A good shorthand for "work" means "the system sustains itself without outside interference".
When >>17972161 says "serfdom is horrible" he actually explains how it doesn't work - without outside interference. Edward III instituted a "letter testimonial" to keep serfs on the farm. England then stagnated and, in the 1400s, suffered through the Wars Of The Roses.
Few systems seem to work perfectly, since there are always going to be malcontents, free farmers slacking on the job expecting the same pay, employers cheating their productive farmers, and so on. But free farming works better than the Letter Testimonial: the landowners are more profitable and the farm workers aren't serfs.

>>17972149
This is correct but the freedom to use your property as you please also implies the freedom to exclude anyone (like immigrants) from it. And so libertarianism is not really "open-borders" but rather private borders.

>>17972162
> It's better to trust officials who have an vested interest in protecting the nation with such powers rather than an inherently self interested class of people.
The whole point is that nobody should have the power to determine what currency others can and can't use!
If you give anyone a monopoly over the use of force, you are doing this by from the start!

And you can guarantee, somehow, that these "officials" will not be "self interested", whatever that means? How?
According to you, these people should have the power to use violence to stop someone from using any currency they don't like, from lending with interest rates they don't like, they have the power to tax people under rates they see fit and jail them if they refuse, to use that money however they see fit, etc, but they wouldn't be "self interested"? And this supposedly is the best way to "protect the nation". Which is another extremely vague expression, by the way.

>>17972156
Why? What is "good"? What's your criteria for "good" and "bad"?

>>17972184
If that's your criteria how can you determine a-priori if a system will "sustain itself without outside interference"?
And furthermore, suppose the soviet union lasted forever, that would make it morally permissible for communists to enslave farmers and steal from them?

>>17969137 (OP)
If you are Jewish? 100%.

>>17972198
I explained my terms once to you. You don't get a second turn at my time, sealion.