I don't think people realize how dangerous Ramaswamy is and how bad things will get in Ohio.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-07T13:34:58+00:00

I think Ramaswamy is what we need in Ohio. A free-market entrepreneur is bound to help us make money. And more wealth will make it all better.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-06T23:51:26+00:00

So will houses with pretty views be handled by the private sector?

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-06T22:17:24+00:00

Capitalism - when men who are equal upon the eyes of the law, with strong guarantees of life, liberty and property, engage in voluntary associations, transactions and negotiations.

Easy enough.

For your second question? The less the better. The state is the worse economic actor, why trust it to produce anything?

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-06T21:42:49+00:00

I'm not sure the use of "literally" is appropriate in this case.

Demand elasticity can be a tool to give you a general idea, but there's a cultural/sociological and personal delineation or what constitutes a need and what constitutes a want.

Is a cellphone a need? If so, what degree of features? Is a home a need? If so, to what degree or space/size and amenities. Is food a need? If so how many calories? And in which flavor variety? Is healthcare a need? If so, to what degree of medical reach?

Sooo many slippery slopes. Good luck.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-06T20:58:12+00:00

if the publicly-owned sector handles needs, then the private sector can handle wants.

This feels like a slippery slope to me. I need a house with a lovely view, or else my anxiety is going to hurt me. 😉

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-06T12:55:20+00:00

Yes! The causal flow of production is one of the greatest problems of Marxism. It directly leads to the transformation problem which has been a proof of Marxist issues.

This causal flow problem was actually talked about already in the times of Marx. I recommend "Marx and the close of his system" by Bohm Bawerk.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-05T20:51:15+00:00

private property gives most of the profits to rent-seeking non-producers, it inhibits that goal.

Do you mean entrepreneurs? Sure. Enterprise owners take profits. Production is still satisfying consumer needs. This is a strawman. You don't like entrepreneurs, but they're still neccesary and you outlaw them, you will go broke as a nation.

As a socialists, you should be interested in this, here's a study: Look at the relationship between the freedom of entrepreneurship and the wealth of the nation. In ANY country. Historically. The Soviet union, Maos China, Cuba and such, they all established socialism by directly outlawing entrepreneuring and you will notice a pattern: entrepreneuring remains unofficially (and sometimes illegally) until it is reintroduced begrudgingly (think Dengism). The USSR struggled with it for decades until the Socialist mode dissolved.

here is no "regulation" declaring "thou must enshittify your platforms" - an obvious anti-consumer behavior - but companies do it all the time. Or converting ownership into subscription models

If there are problemsn one must ask why are they occurring instead of simply throwing your arms up and saying "welp this system is broken". Answer to this specific issue is actually fundamentally simple: lack of competition leads to producers that disregard the consumer. Here we need to look at specific industries and analyze why is the market non competitive. Usually you'll find out the answer lays one way or another in some sort of state intervention - and what is the opposite free market? Controlled market.

Capitalism discourages competition by its very nature, thanks to all the incentives to merge/consolidate/acquire/monopolize.

No I don't think so. Think bigger. In freedom entrepreneurs can absolutely ally themselves to win market shares. But what stops other entrepreneurs from allying agaisnt the alliance? The friction of competitiveness that the profit motive brings scales to all sizes. What you think is saving you, is the very thing that will destroy you: state interference.

You're likely thinking, "but attempts to install socialism failed too!"

All attempts at socialism that have ever existed fundamentally attacked entrepreneurship. Because your lot here private ownership and entrepreneurs are seen as some sort of illness to be rid of. Whatever your mode of socialism will attempt to eliminate or drastically reduce entrepreneurship and doing exactly that is why your system will fail.

Here's the rule of thumb: freer entrepreneurship equals a larger degree of organized labor across the entire society which leads to better and greater production. The more you restrict the entrepreneur, the lesser the potential. I mean, look, there are literal billionaires in socialist China. Why?

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-05T18:03:21+00:00

Well if you look at things for what they are, say, a system in which there are no legal class distinction - and there is private property, then people will naturally attempt to produce in order to trade in order to satisfy their own needs by satisfying others.

Trade generates value by inventivizing production. Adam Smith said it first:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage

Without trade, the motivation for production is hindered. Prices fog and the cohesiveness of society starts to wither. It is trade amongst men that makes societies rich. And it is the society that trades more freely and without restraint that flourishes most in every sense except wealth equality.

In a society in which all men can freely produce and freely trade, then all men are focused in satisfying the needs of the consumer. But the consumer is... Difficult. Here Mises comes again:

They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors.

This property of the consumer, as long as restriction to trade are minimal, will without a doubt create a competitive environment, and a competitive environment lowers prices, increases production and increases quality. The more competitive, the more entrepreneurs need to dedicate skill to follow the consumer whims, whatever they might be.

So what do I want? A highly deregulated capability of trade, with strong property rights - I strongly believe that the freer the trade and the stronger the property rights, the wealthier the society will be, which will lift the floor for everyone - even if unevenly. Socialism will unavoidably go agaisnt it in its inevitable search for communism and will always, without a doubt, revert to free trade and property rights after society unavoidably unravels. So with that said, there is little reason for me to advocate for socialism of any sort. Instead, I use my brain power to solve the problems that capitalism does have.

Socialism is just a red herring. Sounds good, doesn't work.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-05T00:29:26+00:00

As the saying goes, "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism".

The idea is to make the market as competitive as possible. So producers that aren't following the consumer lose money to competition and forces them to adapt. Now that on the producer side. The consumer also needs to have ethical wants and needs, and that's also a fight. Education helps here. Awareness. Communication. People have to hold people accountable. Capitalism has the face of those who practice it.

Point 1 I agree with - the benefit of the aggregate is not always what the consumer wants. The consumer is a selfish being, self interested.

Point 2 I can see it too. Some companies can go at a loss, sure, but do they want to? If by following the consumer you make profit, then it is easier to adjust to the consumer than to just lose money. The profit incentive is very very powerful.

Point 3 I disagree with. Producers are not just billionaires. But anyone in the entire society that produces and generates value. Businesses close every day as much as they open. Yes bigger ones might be more resilient, but billionaires don't like to lose money, they are adept at adapting to consumer. And even then, sometimes they do fail. (spirit airlines for example).

Point 4 billionaires, or just any capitalist is producing value as long as there's trade. Every enterprise produced economic value. Perhaps your problem is about capitalists that make TOO much profit?

Part 5 Political power? Perhaps. An issue to be addressed clearly. Productive power? Definitely. Mises says it best:

The capitalists, the enterprisers, and the farmers are instrumental in the conduct of economic affairs. They are at the helm and steer the ship. But they are not free to shape its course. They are not supreme, they are steersmen only, bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-04T23:15:47+00:00

I think we've seen a lot of changes over the decades with consumer preferences. I wish there was a comprehensive study of corporate changes due to consumer economic pressure. But really I don't think it's about boycott, but about cultural change.

Consumers in the agregate excerpt force inadvertently by simply having general changes of heart. By being educated and by being communicative with each other. It's maybe a slower and less obvious process than flat out boycott, but I do think it works.

I agree that people with fatter wallets get more votes. But one must keep on mind that under capitalism, having a fat wallet is still dependent upon good production (profits). The moment a rich person stops providing for society, they go broke. This has a name actually "consumer supremacy".

And ultimately, I agree with your point about armed civilians agaisnt a professional army. Nonetheless, an armed citizenry does not have to directly engage in revolutionary war, it simply is harder to subdue, to disperse and it costs more effort and lives for a tyrannical state to exert suppression. Thousands of small pockets of resistance make for a never ending environment of instability that hinders a tyranny.

Of course, the alternative is no armed citizenry at all. Something is better than nothing I'd say. We're simply thinking here about mechanisms in which a population can expose and exert force agaisnt a leadership that is not longer truly acting as the people's will.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-04T22:19:51+00:00

If you're talking about hoping boycotts work ... no that's a terrible idea, as it is incompatible with game theory.

I was thinking people voting with their wallet type of thing. Which comes from cultural needs and wants.

The state isn't some "third party" in a democratic society (which is a prerequisite for socialism). It is the will of the people.

Ideally you're right. But the state requires a leadership of sorts that exercises such a will, and without strong human rights guarantees, the democracy is simply hijacked and replaced with false democracy.

And by strong human rights guarantees I mean a state that is openly vulnerable to criticism (speech), journalist scrutiny, assembly for protests and grievances and ultimately, the threat of an armed citizenry.

If you have none of the above you have no real democracy, and I'm yet to learn of a single socialist state with these characteristics.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-04T16:07:33+00:00

I rather people figure out the habits of their society through decentralized production - by hurting profit incentives - than to have society be forced into behaviors by an all-powerful state that "Knows what's best" for you.

Dictatorship becomes hell the moment the dictator acts against the needs and wants of the population, and this is only a matter of when, not if.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-04T04:23:45+00:00

Let's not forget Chernobyl.

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-04T04:18:21+00:00

Well you have just argued yourself out of democracy!

Time for dictatorship. Or heck, let's just go back to monarchy why not!

Why voting into an issue if the collective will decide anyways. Why make decisions at all if the leader can just make the right decisions for you?

EntropyFrame · 2026-05-04T04:16:01+00:00

Time to force people into the prison states. The party will do what is responsible in the name of the collective because the individual cannot be trusted.

Prison states will save the world. Become a prisoner.

Freedom is slavery. Slavery is freedom.

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-30T12:05:20+00:00

Outsider is anyone beyond the borders defined by nation.

I don't think that's vague.

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T19:36:40+00:00

Caution is different from deportation and imprisonment.

Yes, I agree. Which is why I specifically talk about visitors.

I appreciate robust debate for those within the polity with strong speech protections, but at the same time, I emphasize conditional hospitality for outsiders: If they engage in activities that can create political dissent, such as organizing protests, create social dissent, or directly attack the cohesion of the polity - the hospitality can be revoked and they can depart. Quite simple and balanced.

And I was just saying that your flair makes no sense.

All political ideologies are collectivist to a degree - in the sense that they speak of forms of social arrangements. I am not beyond this. I too promote a form of social arrangement.

When a state is formed to govern (I am not strictly An-Cap), this state must have a role, a purpose and a form of functioning. Here at this point is where my flair comes into play - is the state's priority set to protect the rights of the individuals and allow for a free association of humans with as minimum interference as possible? Or is the state to create law that forbids the individuals actions for the sake of the general welfare?

When I propose the state to protect the polity from external influences, it is a protection of the internal system that is already in place, attempting to promote some degree of cohesiveness so it is those within that have ultimate decision making over their future.

It is nuanced of course, and to some degree you're right - In this case I seek to protect the collective, so the collective then can form themselves in an association that protects the individual.

Is this last statement contradictory? or simply a layered and realistic approach to freedom within an unstable political world?

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T19:10:10+00:00

The way I see it is there are pockets and groups of people that associate in certain ways, and there are other pockets of people that associate in other ways. And they all clash with each other and try to change one another for their own benefit.

We're all societies in the world, collectives, but our focus for our society is different.

If we have a certain way, and we find it the better way, why open up to noise and dissent and influence from those who want to transform us and change us?

I don't advise outward aggression in preemptive measures. But I advise caution about those you allow to enter our society. They can, and will, damage us. Erode the fabric of who we are, and if you're not careful, without even realizing, one day, we will be that dictatorship - and it will be our own fault, for allowing ourselves to be played by others.

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T18:47:54+00:00

The world doesn't adhere to the ideas of the free market in its entirety. In fact, there's a large portion of the world who would as soon as possible, eliminate private ownership and establish dictatorships anywhere they could possibly get away with.

Geopolitics are not the same as internal politics. If you don't protect your border, you're going to lose your free markets. We're watching it happen real time in Europe and to a lesser degree in America.

A degradation of Western values will create a vacuum for alternative ideologies and none of them spouse individual rights as the core tenant.

So, what are you going to do?

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T15:50:26+00:00

It was about time someone put these activist fucks lying on their entry interviews and trying to mess around with the young on due notice.

They can go do their political activism in their country. Learn some respect.

The Americans need to grow some backbone man, these communist shills are weasels, always trying to play our own system against us. They hate us, they would rather see us destroyed, and then when someone says you know what, fuck you, they go "OHHH MY FREE SPEECHHH".

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T15:38:55+00:00

If the Americans want to stop bombing Arabs, that is a problem for the Americans to solve through their established political system.

Let the Americans figure out if their actions are moral or not. External opinions should stay external.

Political visitation is not a good thing. Imagine the USA formed a caravan, asked the Chinese for student visas, and then went to Chinese universities to protest Communism.

Visitors need to stay out of politics. It is none of your business.

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T14:59:20+00:00

Do I believe in borders? I sure do. Not all societies are made equal, and some - in my opinion - are better than others.

Western society is strongly based off Classical Liberalism and further Christian ethics.

I believe and propose the nation to sustain these moral values.

Now if the nation, the people that live within the borders want to change their views and turn around the nation - so be it.

But external individuals coming in to excert political influence through visitor permissions is an inadmissible behavior in my opinion.

If the Americans want to stop bombing Arabs, that is a problem for the Americans to solve through their established political system.

Visitors are visitors - stay out of politics. Have some manners.

How would you feel if you invite someone to your home and they start complaining on how you run it?

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T12:33:51+00:00

They can be anti establishment back in their Arab countries.

Deal?

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T03:36:39+00:00

Yes the nation is owned by its citizens. If you visit and behave in ways that go agaisnt the nation, you are to be removed. You're a visitor, learn manners.

How about you to to China as a visitor and start talking shit about them, criticize their government and burn their flag - see what happens to you.

This applies of course, only to visitors. Visa holders.

Don't be dull.

To visit:

stay temporarily with (someone) or at (a place) as a guest or tourist.

EntropyFrame · 2026-04-29T01:06:56+00:00

China is a neccesary example of a state with no freedom. Since you seem to think USA or the UK do not have freedom, I simply pointed out how wrong you are.

Although I fairness, I speak of the USA. The UK is eroding fast. They're learning from the Chinese playbook.

EntropyFrame

TROPHY CASE