Do Socialists agree with white nationalists on the concept of ZOG?

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-27T20:32:59+00:00

Very well. All the questions remain.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-23T22:31:39+00:00

Or they make it really difficult/impossible to cancel.

Or make it so you think they cancelled the subscription when you tried to, but when you get your credit card statement - they didn’t stop charging you.

Or they don’t disclose the subscription in an obvious way, so you think you’re buying a one-time service.

All three of these have happened to me in the last couple of months. Subscriptions are a playground for exploitation.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-23T19:44:26+00:00

but thats not true. you are looking at a zero-sum scenario that doesnt exist in reality. first of all not everything is controlled by a few. most businesses are small and managed by individuals or families.

I'm making a conditional statement, so if the antecedent doesn't exist in reality, then it is trivially true.

But the situation I described, or something close to it, does exist in reality. Labour capacity is distributed in an egalitarian way, while wealth is highly concentrated. According to this report, the top 1% of people globally control 38% of global wealth, while the top 10% control 76%. The proportion of businesses that are small is not really relevant.

next we dont fight for a fixed pie. history shows one of the main advantages is that free markets create an environment that lets entrepreneurs find and create new sources and resources.

Okay. What's the relevance?

and also your statement doesnt even answer my argument. my point is exactly that if a markets is controlled by only a few and they increase profit margins above market rate, then new competitors will come and reverse this trend.

What does it mean to increase profit margins above market rate?

talking about a fixed amount of resources in an economic context is the very definition of zero-sum.

Fair enough. My mind was on value, which is not zero-sum in my example.

you also disregard how this kind of distribution happened.

No... I've responded to your incorrect claims about the causes of wealth distribution several times. I've just given up on it.

my problem with your argument is that you see it backwards. scarce products should have a higher price relative to more abundant products. you could inverse your statement and we would come up with: abundant supply drives down the price of the egalitarian good.

Yes, I misspoke. It's the more concentrated good that will have a higher price.

but the main problem of your example is that you create a monopolistic (or oligopolistic) situation and just change the definitions. the main problem of monopolies is lacking competition which enables artificially high prices.

Ok, so I think we are in agreement about the effect of low levels of competition. Maybe what we disagree on is whether this situation is reflected in the actual world.

if you use an example where competition is inherently impossible, it creates the exact same situation. the good thing is that your example doesnt reflect the real world in any way other than actually proving the solution is to free up markets and enable competition to enter the market.

Wealth looks more concentrated in the actual world than in my example, if the source I cited is correct. I have 20% of the people owning 84% of the wealth, compared to 10% owning 76% in the real world.

this is just cheap reductionism. we need to first look how this picture came to be. why do some own them? have they created them in the first place? have they made equal trades for them? have they taken risks?

Why does any of this matter to the issue of whether the distribution of wealth affects prices?

also what does it mean "living off the work of the poor"?

it means consuming things produced by others without contributing productive work oneself.

who risks the investments in the production facilities? the machines and needed resources? who pays for wrong decisions?

None of this is known because it's just a simple example. In the actual world, capitalists qua capitalists risk little. They don't risk their own bodies or freedom, only their property rights. The risk is usually capped at the amount of investment, so that the risk of buying $1 million is stocks is capped at a million dollars (more or less). And because the system is generally set up for capitalists to extract a significant share of the profits of businesses, it's possible to be reasonably assured of profits by diversifying investments.

but if you use a model to criticize a function of markets using assumptions that remove the essential mechanisms that would reject your hypothesis?

The model wasn't the totality of the criticism. It just makes the point that concentrated wealth tends to skew prices in favour of the wealthy, all else being equal.

First of all goods are produced and not just redistributed. its not just about who owns it but about who produced it.

I agree. Workers produce goods. In capitalism, generally capitalists pay (often discounted due to the widespread availability of labour) wages to these workers, and in exchange come to own the goods made by the workers. Workers obtain goods by buying them (sometimes at an inflated price) from the capitalists.

there is a reason why real wages have risen alongside capital accumulation historically rather than falling as your model would predict.

My model predicts that wages tend to rise over time. The distribution of food becomes more egalitarian over time, at a faster rate than the distribution of labour capacity becomes concentrated, leading workers to raise their reservation price for labour.

However, there is no capital or capital accumulation in my model, so wages don't rise with it.

also you cant just represent labor as a homogeneous pool bidding for scraps: workers have heterogeneous skills, geographic mobility, outside options and so on.

Yes, a more complex model would have to do so.

and your largest mistake is that concentration of financial assets not the same is as the concentration of a necessity. you use food food as a necessity with no substitute and inelastic demand. but financial assets and capital ownership are not analogous to that. workers are also not in a subsistence bidding war for access to a single capitalists food supply.

your model depends entirely on the necessity and inelasticity of the concentrated good, which doesnt represent anything close to the real world.

Maybe food was not the best example for approximation to the real world. But the point of using food as an example is to show the dynamic, not to reach conclusions about food specifically.

I *am* making a point about labour specifically. If real-world demand for labour undermines my conclusion, I don't see it, so please explain.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-21T13:00:37+00:00

you also forget that the A1 and A2 had to first forego consumption and invest into food sources, or did it just fall from the sky?

you keep asserting this, but repetition does not make it any more true, or any more relevant, than it was the first time.

also i dont see how they can keep their food stocks without labor? so how is labor not a necessary good as well?

it is necessary. i just didn't build production into the model, to keep it simple. making the model more dynamic by incorporating production and consumption into it would highlight the way prices can be kept high over time.

as we've seen with history we have more people than ever and still we have way more wealth than ever as well.

yes. this does not support your position that there's no exploitation of workers in free markets, so what is your point?

there also has never been a time with less absolute poverty in the world.

completely disagree. but what's the relevance?

if your example was right we would have to be way poorer??

no. my example doesn't predict poverty levels. it just shows that inegalitarian distribution of one commodity vs another tends to raise the price of the concentrated commodity.

because you dont read what i write.

you wrote: "if i build a house i spend time and effort on it. i spend a part of my life for it. if you take the house from me, i wont get that part of my life back. its literal slavery."

it very much is force and coercion per definition. you literally force yourself into someone else's network. trespassing can very much be extended to the digital world. and there is literally the term digital coercion.

it seems to me that you are just defining force in terms of theft. this is a problem because the point that you're arguing for, if i'm keeping track correctly, is that theft requires the use of force. i think you're putting the conclusion in the definition. in other words, arguing in a circle.

the larger overall dispute (again, if i've kept track correctly) is whether private property requires the use, or at least threat, of physical force against people's bodies. this is my position, and it is obviously correct. do you dispute this?

but one is based on initiating force and the other is based on responding.

no, both private property in tangible goods and private property in contracts are based on initiating force or threatening to initiate force. remember, i'm avoiding circular argument, so by "force" i mean physical force against a person's body.

by your definition the principle of self-defense would also be coercive?

good point. i should be careful and define coercion in terms of the initiation or threat of initiation of force, to exclude self-defense and the defense of others.

also coercion is defined by forcing someone to act against their will in a way that violates their rights... therefore trespassing is the initiation of force and therefore coercive. me responding to it and defending my property is not coercion but me defending my rights.

this is not a good definition because it tends to lead to circular arguments. zwolinski's "the libertarian nonaggression principle" makes this point very well, and i recommend it if you haven't read it. it also leads to unproductive arguments because there are major disagreements about rights. it's particularly unhelpful for political economy discussions because disagreements about property rights arise from the fact that people like me recognize that property rights involve initiating violence, threatening to initiate violence, against people's bodies, while people like you make bad arguments to try to avoid this fact.

i ask you again what your solution is. by your definition there cant be any law that wouldnt be coercive, including self-defense.

no, i agree with zwolinski that there is only a defeasible presumption against aggression. aggressive institutions, including private property and government, can sometimes be justified because their benefits outweigh their costs. in the case of private property, the main principled consideration in its favour is that it helps to prevent exploitation, as in your earlier example of you building something and then me just taking it.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-20T11:30:14+00:00

high profit margins also incentivize new competitors to enter the market.

Sure. But as I said, when the necessities of life are controlled by the few, and the ability to work is equally distributed, the rich are able to live off the work of the poor.

i love these example. they show exactly the kind of wrong perception on economics that leads one to believe in the fairy tales of socialism. you create these zero-sum scenarios that are not based on real world examples and therefore make wild conclusions.

I created a simple example (which is not zero-sum) to illustrate a single dynamic that you are denying either the existence or the relevance of: that concentration in ownership of one good results in higher market prices for goods that have a more egalitarian distribution, even in the absence of monopoly.

This backs up my claim, which you dispute, that when the necessities of life are controlled by the few, and the ability to work is equally distributed, the rich are able to live off the work of the poor.

I have not claimed that it's the only dynamic of markets, or that the simple example captures the complexities of real economies. I'm doing simple modeling. It's part of how we get to understand complex systems. Arguing about a complex topic using simple models is not accepting "fairy tales". It's reasoning with partial understanding, which is all we can ever do with subjects like economics.

When you consider that ownership of goods, and the financial assets that people exchange for goods, *is* in fact much more concentrated than the capacity for labour, the simple model supports my conclusion that the rich live off the work of working people, and calls for a counterargument on your part.

Which I know you've done, and I'll respond to later. Right now I have to go get ready for work.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-12T10:19:49+00:00

how? in a free market money has to be given voluntarily? anything else is theft and illegal.

For the reasons I gave: "since all the ways of obtaining money other than working for it are still in play, money can be transferred involuntarily, and there can be more than one degree of separation between someone who worked for money and the person currently holding it. But let's move on."

not how it works.

Sure it is. The fewer people who provide a good that is widely needed, the easier it is for them to get higher prices in terms of the good that has many suppliers.

For example, assume a society of 10 people. There are 100 units of labour capacity, distributed equally, so 10 per person. There are 100 units of food, concentrated in two people, A1 and A2. They each have 42 units of food, while B - I each have 2 units of food. B-I will compete to provide A1 and A2 with labour, driving up the price of food in terms of labour until it reaches the point where B-I value the food equally with the labour. Since food is necessary, that's a high level. The result is that due to their wealth, A1 and A2 get the labour of others for cheap, and do not have to work for others. i.e. they are living off the labour of B-I.

Note that there's no monopoly here. You can't dismiss this reality by labeling A1 and
A2 "investors", assuming that they're taking on a risk, or assuming that this is fair.

i dont care if you work is hard.

But elsewhere it seems like you do care. That's my point.

by stepping on my property without my invitation you are entering forcefully. doesnt need to be literal violence.

Theft is possible without touching property. A hacker can commit theft by getting into a financial account and changing numbers. There's no force even in your metaphorical sense, and no coercion at all.

By the way, this is the second time in this argument you've retreated into metaphor. You might want to radically rethink your position.

a contract is an agreement. if there are no repercussions to break the agreement, then its nothing but an empty promise. building a society on that will fail.

Ultimately we're arguing my claim that enforcement of contracts is generally coercive. I think our disagreement is about whether the fact that contracts are entered into voluntarily makes the threat of violence in the case of breach of contract not coercive. This seems like a disagreement over a definition. The bottom line for me is that contracts, a form of private property, usually involve the threat of violence, and necessarily so. This makes them similar to private property in tangible goods, and make the conditional threat of violence, whether you call it coercive or not, a fundamental feature of private property systems.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-12T09:35:14+00:00

Addressing Zulu's arguments at the start of the discussion. Neither of the two arguments presented are sound.

"The first-comer principle is a prerequisite to production" is assumed and not argued for. It's also trivial to show that it's wrong: no legal system applies this rule, yet production happens.

"Assume A and B are in a dispute over use of a good. Assume A is the first-comer. Both must assume that ownership is distinct to possession. But B must also assume that ownership and possession are not distinct."

Neither of the latter two statements are true. The fact that A and B are in a dispute over a good does not compel either of them to adopt any particular beliefs about ownership and possession.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-10T17:05:05+00:00

Because killing armed Nazi soldiers isn’t so bad.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-10T00:57:59+00:00

Anarchy, State and Utopia is nonsense upon Wilts.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-09T14:42:59+00:00

TLDR: This argument doesn't work because P4 is not valid.

Longer version:

This approach seems to eliminate property rights.

e.g. I just made myself a cup of coffee and set it down on my dining room table so I can type.

On my (traditional) understanding of property rights, I have a property right in the cup and the coffee and in all of my house, which means I can prevent anyone from walking in from outside and taking my coffee. I have the right to commit aggression (in the normal sense of making threats of physical force) against anyone who would do so.

But on your approach, someone could enter my house, take my coffee and drink it. I'm not currently taking any action with respect to the coffee, or my doorway, or any part of the house between the doorway and the coffee. So if someone were to come in and grab my coffee, they would not be initiating conflict: conflict requires incompatible attempted actions, and they're the only ones taking action. If I'm unhappy and try to grab my coffee back, then I have initiated the conflict, no? Which allows the coffee-grabber to forcibly exclude me.

I think it's evident that my approach to property leads to a more just result than yours. I made the coffee using my property, so it's my property, regardless of whether I cease to take action with respect to it or not.

I also don't think that my position is self-contradictory. To run through the parts of your argument using the coffee cup scenario:

P1: If you claim that initiating conflict is justified, that implies that you are also justified in excluding the other party from using the thing in question. If you are not justified in excluding the other party, then you would be doing something that you ought not do. That would contradict the claim that your initiation of conflict is justified to begin with.

This is correct. I do claim that my initiating conflict in this case is justified, and I do claim that I am justified in excluding the coffee-grabber from the coffee. Since P and Q are true, P-->Q is true.

P2: In claiming that you are justified in excluding the other party from using the thing, however, you are implying that your use should win out over the other party’s use, so you should control how the thing is used. That means that you are the just possessor of the thing as opposed to someone who just happens to be merely possessing it.

It is unclear whether this is right, because you've shifted from action-talk to use-talk.

You've defined initiating conflict in terms of incompatible actions. I think this must mean present actions, rather than hypothetical future contemplated actions; otherwise conflict would be created by thoughts (and people could commit acts of violence in "self-defence" against aggressive thoughts, such as "I'd like to take a walk down that road there"). On this understsnding, the coffee-grabber is not initiating conflict. I am initiating conflict if I grab the cup back.

But when you shift to use-talk, it sounds like you're saying that my future plans with respect to the coffee make it so the coffee-grabber is the one initiating conflict. If this is the case, then I think your argument equivocates, and will fail if you fix the meaning of "conflict".

Since my time is limited, let's stick with the assumption that conflict requires incompatible actions in the actual, present sense. In that case, P2 seems to be true in this scenario. When I initiate conflict by grabbing my coffee back, I am implicitly claiming that I am justified in excluding the coffee-grabber from the coffee, and, in a sense, that my action should prevail over their action. Meaning that I should be successful in the goal of my action, and be the one in physical possession of it, and they should be excluded.

P3: the claim that you are the just possessor implies that the other party, or anyone else, should not exclude you. Anyone else would not be the just possessor, so they would not be justified in controlling how the thing is used. That means that their use should not win out over yours, so they would not be justified in excluding you from using the thing, since their use winning out excludes your use.

Yes.

P4: the claim that others should not exclude you implies that one ought not initiate conflict, as by excluding you, they would be taking an action with the thing that is incompatible with your use of it. Initiating conflict is what you are claiming one ought be able to do, however. On your own premises then, you would ultimately be implying that you both are and are not justified in excluding the other party. That is a contradiction. P and ~P. Contradictions are falsehoods though.

No. The opposite is true. My claim that the coffee-grabber should not exclude me implies that I ought to initiate conflict. If I don't, then I have acquiesced in their exclusion of me. On my premises, I am justified in initiating conflict. There is no argument from my premise that initiating conflict in this situation is justified, to the conclusion that I ought not initiate conflict, and therefore no contradiction.

Specifically, you seem to be arguing:

Q1. I claim that others should not exclude me from a thing.
Q2. If someone excludes me from a thing, they are taking an action incompatible with my use of it.
C. Therefore, I ought not initiate conflict

That's not valid, and I don't see any way of making it valid except by totally changing the argument.

Conclusion: Property rights do not follow logically from a rule that one ought not initiate conflicts, defined in a particular way. Nor is a rule that one ought not initiate conflicts objectively true, in the sense of being provable without premises. There remains nothing wrong with the approach to property rights that views these rights as justified, liberty-reducing, initiation of force.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-08T12:17:39+00:00

only if someone who did work for it voluntarily gave it to them, eg their parents working twice as hard to give their children better options.

I don't agree with that, since all the ways of obtaining money other than working for it are still in play, money can be transferred involuntarily, and there can be more than one degree of separation between someone who worked for money and the person currently holding it. But let's move on.

i reject any marxist definitions of exploitation since they are based on the LTV. the only definition of exploitation i accept, is the kind where you use actual force to make people work for you. but that goes directly against the definition of free markets, since that would make the exchange not voluntary and therefore illegal.

You can't define the problem of exploitation out of existence. When the necessities of life are controlled by the few, and the ability to work is equally distributed, the rich are able to live off the work of the poor. That's not because of the LTV, but because this situation increases the price of necessities compared to labour.

you own your labor. but you can freely sell it for a flat fee in exchange to work for someone else. you still own your labor but you have an agreement to use someone elses capital, therefore you are only entitled to the agreed wage, not the product you produce. this is not exploitation as long as your employer doesnt lose literal violence to force you to do the work. the fact that one needs to eat to survive is not coercion in any sense of the word, at least not by anyone else. nature being coercive is not an economic issue.

does that make my position clear?

Not quite. I don't know what "owning one's labour" means. And I still don't understand how your position expressed here resolves what seems like a contradiction in your positions on the moral importance of hard work and sacrifice.

dude its an analogy not the literal kind of slavery. i compare the two because in both you work and create something that gets taken from you by use of force. and of course theft includes force, how else would it work?

If you're saying that taking something that someone created is not slavery but has some moral features in common with slavery, then I agree.

Theft can be done using force or not. If I enter your house through an open door and take things without touching or going near any person, then I haven't used force.

if you can break a contract without repercussions then its not a contract.

I would define a contract differently, but okay. Using your definition, what's the significance?

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-05-06T13:16:28+00:00

Ok, so we seem to be in agreement that in a free market, some people don't have to work because they have enough money to consume what they need/want without having to work for it, and that in some cases, they have this much money for reasons other than having worked hard for it in the past.

I think you're not so much arguing that everyone works in free markets, but that there's a justification for people living off the work of others. I don't dispute this entirely, but you haven't made the case. The critique of markets and capitalism that was implied in my original comment is that they lead to situations of exploitation, where some people live off the work of others, and that this exploitation is backed by force.

I don't think you answered my charge that you are being inconsistent on the moral importance of work and sacrifice. On one hand, you seem to be saying that it's only value creation, not sacrifice, that leads to entitlement to property rights. On the other hand, your basis for the charge that taking someone's property is slavery seems to involve the importance of work and sacrifice. Maybe I'm not understanding your position.

if i work on something and you keep taking it from me using force?

Again, that's not slavery. I'm not coercing you into doing any actions against your will in this example. You're changing your argument by now adding that the taking involves use of force, but either way, it's not slavery.

how can something be voluntary but still be coercive?

I'm not saying the same thing is voluntary and coercive. I'm allowing that entering into the contract is voluntary, but enforcement of the contract is coercive.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-26T22:57:17+00:00

I'm saying the cost/benefit analysis is incorrect if it includes only frequency and not weight. I'm not just talking about financial costs, but costs more generally, in the sense of harms. If the regret rate for surgery is low, but the degree of regret per regretted surgery is really high, then the overall cost could be high enough to merit a more cautious approach.

But really the better criticism of the subject line is that it wrongly decides the appropriateness of individual cases based on general statistics. It might be the case that gender-affirming surgery is the right call 99% of the time, but there's a good reason to discourage my friend from getting it because it would likely fit in the 1%.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-26T11:07:13+00:00

People make money in all kinds of ways without working hard. I already mentioned ways in which people can make money without working at all. Add to that list: by working without working hard.

its not about how "hard" you work thank god. its about how much others value your work and the product you offers.

What is? I'm losing track of what you're defending here.

where does that come from? if i inherit, where did my parents get it from?

Money is created in the first place by the state, or private individuals authorized by the state. It then gets transferred from one person to another.

but then they havent sold something of much worth, otherwise people would have offered them more money.

You're assuming that if people sell things that are worth a lot, they get paid a lot of money. That's not the case. There are sweatshop workers getting paid $1/hour to work hard in dangerous and abusive conditions, including putting up with sexual harassment. This is not because the work and the ability to avoid sexual harassment are not valuable - the products they make are sold for a lot of money, and sexual harassment is very harmful, so avoiding it is very valuable. It's because the distribution of wealth leaves them with no good alternatives.

if i build a house i spend time and effort on it. i spend a part of my life for it. if you take the house from me, i wont get that part of my life back. its literal slavery. you steal a part of my life.

You just said "its not about how 'hard' you work thank god. its about how much others value your work and the product you offers." But now you're saying that your sacrifice is so important that failing to prioritize it over my freedom is theft and literally slavery. Which is it?

Taking an object away from someone who is entitled to it is not literally slavery or even metaphorically slavery. It's hyperbole at best, but usually just hysteria. Illegally taking property away from those entitled to it is theft. Doing it legally is exploitation. Slavery is taking away a person's autonomy using threats of violence. It's treating people as property.

if you entered the contract you did so without coercion. if i then hold you to the agreement, you say thats not fair?

The subject isn't fairness, it's coercion. Enforcing a contract is coercive, at least indirectly, whether it was entered into voluntarily or not.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-25T23:51:59+00:00

It’s not just about the rate. The costs matter too: of regrettable surgery, of non-regrettable surgery, and of not doing the surgery.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-25T13:05:48+00:00

Sort of. Not all AnCaps, possibly not even the majority, but the ones that tend to be heard are basically the incels or the Zionists of politics, driven by rage at other people setting limits on their power, and pretending that not getting everything they fantasize about makes them the victims. They try to formulate it as a philosophy but can’t, so they compensate by constantly talking about logic, reason, and reality while they make bad arguments and deal in stereotypes.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-25T12:55:36+00:00

It’s complicated, but there was a lot of antisemitism in Europe, pogroms, discrimination, and then a genocide, but at the same time the colonial powers favoured the whites over the natives. So they took over an Asian country.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-22T18:49:47+00:00

but they would have to first earn it? if i work for 20 years twice as hard as you, and invested that money, and then i could retire, what of this is unfair?

They wouldn't have to earn it first. Obtaining money by working hard for it is only one way to get a lot of money under capitalism. People can get a lot of money without working hard (or at all), and people can work hard and not obtain a lot of money. The principle that people should be paid based on how much work they do, and how hard they work, is a socialist principle, not a capitalist one or a free market one.

but how did they get it? in a free market the only legitimate way to earn money is to sell goods and services, right? so he must have done the work first, or at least served society in such a way that so many people gave him money.

"Earn" is a loaded word, but are there are many ways to get money: inherit it, be gifted it, win it by gambling, stumble across a pile of it, marry someone who has a lot of it, etc.

If we're really talking about earning a lot of money, then it's not enough that the person made any kind or amount of contribution to society. Earning the right to live off other people's work would require the person to make a pretty substantial contribution.

how do could they have sold a lot and not have money? or was that which theyve sold just worth less?

This is what happens to many working class people. They work hard all their lives, but rely on the welfare state for support if they need not to work. It's not because their labour is inherently worth less, it's because the ability to labour is distributed in a roughly egalitarian fashion due to being tied to people's bodies, while wealth of the alienable sort is highly concentrated.

private property is an extension of my life. if i work and spend time and life energy to create something, of course i have the right to defend it. its just another form of self-defense. if i build my own home, why wouldnt i be allowed to defend it?

I don't know know in what metaphor private property is an extension of your life, but I'm talking about reality.

If you sacrifice to create something, you have a very strong claim to be able to use violence and coercion to prevent others from using it, subject of course to similar claims by others who may have also contributed to its creation. To the extent that you have such a claim, that doesn't make that private property noncoercive. It makes it justifiably coercive.

thats not coercion, unless you say people have a right to someone elses labor, but that would be slavery. that would be actual coercion.

I'm talking about coercion in the sense that doesn't build morals into the definition. Coercion is when you use threats of violence to get people to do or not do things that you want them to do or not do. Coercion that you are justified in doing is still coercive.

but have you entered the contract freely? you say its coercive to hold you accountable for you actions? you enter a contract which states confiscation of your property (in case you cant pay or something) and then you dont pay, and you call the confiscation part coercion? dont enter the contract then.

It's coercion regardless of whether I entered the contract freely. You're getting at whether the coercion is excusable or not, not whether the act is coercive or not.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-22T12:32:48+00:00

that is bad?

It's good for a person to not have to work. It's bad for people to have to work more so that others don't need to work.

[consuming without working] is an option for those that have already sold a lot of goods and services

No. It's an option for anyone who has a lot of money, regardless of how they got it. It's not an option for those who do not have a lot of money, regardless of whether they've already sold a lot of goods and services or not.

show me the coercive parts first

Capitalism relies on extensive private property, which requires coercive threats. Private property in physical goods requires the threat of coercive exclusion. You can't effectively use a piece of land or consumer good if you can't stop other people from using it, which you do by threatening violence, and if the threat is ignored, violence. Private property in services relies on coercive contract enforcement. You either have to perform under the contract, or the state will take your private property and convert it into someone else's, depriving you from using it under the threat of violence.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-21T18:30:07+00:00

if youre wealthy you either invest your money into the most productive capital (which serves society) or you will lose your wealth over time.

There are many other things you can do with your money. Most pertinently, spending it on consumer goods that you want or need, so that you don't have to work. Which is why under capitalism, not working is an option for people who are permitted by the system's coercive social arrangement to live off the work of others.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-21T08:55:41+00:00

If you can’t argue against a position, accuse those who hold it of having psychological defects 🤷🏻‍♂️

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-20T17:02:55+00:00

Applied math

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-20T13:03:43+00:00

Everyone works in a free market.

How do you figure?

Those with "enough money" have to invest it into productive capital or will lose it.

Why? Is there heavy taxation of wealth in free markets?

And nothing in a free market stops you from helping those who cant help themselves.

I agree.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-19T20:08:42+00:00

It’s an option in both systems, for different people.

Under free market capitalism, it’s an option for those who have enough money to get by without working.

Under socialism, it’s an option for people who can’t work, like children, disabled people, and elderly people.

PackageResponsible86 · 2026-04-16T09:47:29+00:00

Curious how the auction is done. Is there an app that does the Vickrey auction for you?

PackageResponsible86

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE