Who are any of us, really? We all have our public life, our private life…
And your secret life. The one that defines you.
Do you believe no one can live outside the authority of the government?
Do you believe in theft and redistribution of wealth to fund their programs?
Do you believe a small oligarchy of politicians can best regulate the economy?
Do you believe a monopoly of fiat currency must be maintained?
Do you believe in using violence and force against those who disagree with you?
If yes, I think you should reconsider your position about who “deserve oxygen” and who does not.
If the person renting a home stops paying, the landlord will use force to evict the person.
In this case, the force applied by the landlord is legimitate because the tenant is not performing their contractual obligations over the property of the landlord.
You didn’t pay taxes? Here, lemme force you to stay in prison for a while, also here’s a fine on top of that.
There is no contract between the government and citizen that legitimize the violence of the state. Any theory of a “social contract” will be unilateral by nature. Actually, the state itself is a threat to the Non-Agression Principle.
Not all contracts are voluntary and, more importantly, the workers are almost always the weaker party when it comes to negotiation.
The asymmetries of power between both parties does not mean the contract is not voluntary. In fact, any government intervention in the labor market will make this situation worse, as these encourage poverty and harm those workers who are the less productive in the market.
If you leave it to the market to “self-regulate”, you’ll just get feudalism 2.0, where companies become the new noble houses
As long as private property is not violated by institutional coercion; as long as the system of prices is not manipulated by any government policy; as long as human action and his natural rights are respected: social cooperation through the division of labor will flourish, as voluntary exchange is the source of economic progress.
Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity, as property is the only way to resolve conflicts by the existence of scarce resources.
The market is a process, not an “equilibrium model”. It is not designed, but emerged from human action.
Really, any sufficiently big company will act just like a govt, full of unnecessary bureaucracy
The difference is that having market concentration does not mean being a monopoly. In fact, a monopoly is 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.
The state can not have direct consumer feedback; it can not act economically. Instead, it collects taxes and spends them arbitrarily following interest groups.
“In a market economy, the range of quality, quantity, and type of goods and services correspond to social needs. These goods are services that are valued by consumers, and hence, they will be provided if it is economically feasible to do so relative to other social priorities.”
lunatics that cry at taxation but orgasm at rent and profiting off others’ work.
The former is only possible through institutional compulsion and coercion. The latter is through a voluntary contract that expresses the cooperation of both parties to work for each other, as they have a property interest in specific performance of the other.
Denying this process of voluntary exchange is, implicitly, denying the free will of the tenant and worker.
Mileiístas (in spanish).
Yes, I voted him, but to defend myself from the state. I don’t think that, in the long-term, he’s going to save our current crisis. In fact, I advocate for the complete abolishment of the state through agorism.
Taxation is robbery. I live in Argentina (+100% in taxes) and I have this problem too.
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.
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.”
The landlords are providing a service to those who can’t afford houses, and the tenants, through economic calculation, determine that it’s better to pay for a department rather that saving for a house.
In fact, deficit spending, printing fiat money and manipulating interest rates harm savings and relative prices.
“If there seems to be a shortage of supply to meet an evident demand, then look to government as the cause of the problem.”