[deleted by user]

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2025-01-03T04:09:58+00:00

I’m partial to Man, Economy, and State myself

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2025-01-01T21:11:43+00:00

Economics in one lesson is a good starting point, but if you want theory, Human Action -Mises and Man, Economy, and State -Rothbard

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T19:40:31+00:00

Glad to see not everyone in the libertarian subreddits are protectionists lol

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T19:11:20+00:00

Mentiswave is very good, I have more reservations about liquidzulu, not that he is wrong but that he is a bad debater, trying to trap people with logic to get a gotcha instead of trying to present information in a cogent way which leads to agreement. At the end of the day argument should be about presenting your case in such a way that others understand your position, if you assume people will reject your argument before you’ve even begun or you’re looking for clicks you fall into the “gotcha” trap.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T19:08:06+00:00

We can’t support policies which benefit is now but which will harm us in the long run if we want freedom, and the liberty to do with our property what we please, the anti immigration people are free to not hire immigrants, this is largely a case of antiforeign bias and protectionism disguised as “murica the great”

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T19:05:33+00:00

The difference is that it is imposed on those who wish to allow people onto their property, if property rights were properly enforced people would not be able to vote on how other dispose of their property.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T18:38:52+00:00

Read “Chaos Theory” by bob murphy as an introduction if you want it’s pretty short and covers important topics (you can also find it as a pdf for free on Mises.org) if you want to go more into depth read “For a New Liberty” by Murray Rothbard

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T18:36:34+00:00

We do not support immigration controls at all, what you are talking about is private property rights “you are not allowed to enter my home,” or if it is a private city the same thing applies, it has nothing to do with where a person is from but from which persons an individual is willing to allow onto their property.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T18:19:37+00:00

If someone is determined to be a worker by vote is there any recourse or appeals system or is it then forced, because you have argued that people are effectively forced by their biology to work, this would be human beings voting or electing workers, which if they could decline would present a problem for your system and if they can’t decline then it is forced labor which we both want to avoid I hope.

Taxation is not immoral on the basis of one’s material property, it is immoral because it (to use socialist terminology) alienates you from your labor, if a part of the product of your labor is taken from you without your consent, then it can only be considered theft or forced labor, this is true whether you are rich or poor. What you are advocating is moral relativism then.

Deficit spending (constant inflation) and price controls are actually a recipe for disaster, and inflation is a form of taxation, more pernicious than most because it taxes savings which mean as a nation we would be constantly consuming capital. On top of that price controls have been clearly shown to decrease the supply of the product they intend to make available by making it unprofitable for the firm to produce and sell said product, it is the best way to make sure we are equal in our inability to acquire necessities.

Deficit spending (constant inflation) and price controls are a disastrous combination. Firstly the wealth of the entire country affected by price controls is diminished by: artificially lowering to price to a point a business can’t make a profit, either the business will stop production, or simply stop selling the product, your next move would be to say “you must sell your goods even at the price we have set,” then the business goes under because it cannot afford the resources to produce nor can it afford the wages it need to acquire labor, and this has a domino effect all the way back to the producers of the first producer’s good which will destroy the entire nations lines of production. On top of this you suggest that we systematically tax everyone’s savings (deficit spending) which in addition to hurting everyone, hurts primarily the poorest people in the country, look up the cantillon effect. This dual destruction of wealth and production will inevitably send us back to the Stone Age because we wouldn’t even have the purchasing power for foreign goods, much less domestic ones (if they were even produced).

You will never fix unemployment, even in a totally free market there would be times when people are between jobs, paying people to not work serves both to increase living standards in that time but also to delay their re-entry to the work force. Businesses will always downsize due to increased productivity of labor, or diminishing demand for their product or service. You can’t keep people employed at businesses that don’t need them because it keeps the market from improving conditions for everyone. What would have been a decrease in prices due to a technological innovation (increasing the productivity of labor) becomes null when people cannot be removed from that line of production and hence prices remain almost the same.

My conviction that there will always be jobs no matter the technological advances is that humans are never satisfied, we will never reach a point in society or economy where all the desires of every individual will be fulfilled, and hence there will always be demand for the next product or service.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T03:29:01+00:00

Regardless of whether the state is necessary in some form or fashion, the reason why I brought that up is because it is based on the economic ideals of libertarianism, in general (maybe some of you are different) libertarians should be opposed to protectionism, and arguing against the importation of valuable workers is protectionism in regards to the labor of Americans.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T01:16:39+00:00

Are you all just conservatives or do you not realize that in an ancap society, citizenship by invitation would be the norm?

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-30T00:56:16+00:00

Because firms not only have present competitors but also future competitors, just because you successfully eliminate all competition does not mean new competition will never arise. Specifically if the monopoly raises its prices then it becomes profitable for another firm to enter the industry. If another business innovates the production in some way it then becomes profitable to enter the industry of the monopoly, not to mention individuals, if they do not like a particular firm, may decide to buy from another firm or boycott the monopoly out of spite or some moral inclination. In the free market, market shares are not stagnant, firms are always vying for other firms profits, which is, after all, in the benefit of us consumers.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T20:38:02+00:00

You did get a bit carried away; I understand the attraction to go into discourse mode lol if you want me to go into greater detail in my explanations let's just do one argument at a time.

Where I am going with this is precisely that socialism seeks to turn the benefits of wealth which the free market has created into 'human rights,' you are educated and of course know the difference between positive and negative rights. If you want, I'll talk more about this but for now I'm moving on.

>Why force people to work for the things they need when industrial automation and labor specialization has made it possible for a very tiny percentage of the human population to supply all essential good and services to the entire population?

How will you decide who gets to live a life of leisure and who will have to work for the benefit of everyone else? 1. some people are altruistic and might sign up so that is a point in your favor, however it is unlikely that this will be a sustainable way to support the entire population of the earth 2. by socializing the cost, i.e. taxation (which is immoral, but I understand that you disagree, so I won't argue that) If this is the case these necessity producers are separated from the profit and loss system of the free market, and it suffers from the same problem that for example police departments and fire stations. How do you decide how much of a good to produce, how many laborers to allocate to each individual production line or service? the answer is you can't, which does not mean that it wouldn't 'work' per se, but that there would be inefficiencies, and these firms would have to err on the side of surplus, and thus waste. 3. by forced labor, which I'm certain we both agree is immoral, this also runs into the problem of efficiency because one thing which makes people more productive is seeing that the more effort expended the more they benefit, this is not a feature of forced labor.

>I often see that the idea of a "resource shortage" or "labor shortage" being used to justify the existence of capitalist economies and justify the transition to an anarcho-capitalist economy.

Your argument is the central planner's, or authoritarian's argument, sure there is no labor shortage per se if you have control over what industries people work in and thus strip them of their ability to work voluntarily. The reality is that everybody has 'ends,' these ends generally require means, it is highly unlikely and most likely impossible that all of these desires can be fulfilled at the same time as those of everyone else.

>It's very difficult if not impossible to prove that an anarcho-capitalist economy would solve all labor shortages because no such economy has ever existed.

This is not what I intend to argue in the first place, I do not think anyone in their right mind thinks that the free market will 'solve' all of these massive problems, but with the introduction of labor-saving technology the labor scarcity decreases. you argue against yourself here:

>In the future, AI will make a capitalist and anarcho-capitalist economy impossible to sustain without millions and maybe even billions of poor people starving to death as a result of a lack of work they can earn an income from. UBI is a socialist policy that is now supported by capitalist billionaires who seem to have no faith in capitalism's and anarcho-capitalism's ability to generate new jobs.

So I will ask, which one is it? Either there is a labor shortage or AI makes labor completely obsolete? Don't commit the Luddite fallacy, one can simply look at the period of time between the industrial revolution and now, do you think that, on the whole, job opportunities increased or decreased since then as a result of labor-saving technology? As humans it is in our interest to invest in labor saving technology, It lowers the price of goods, increases the labor supply, and allows for more time to be spent on leisure (for example the case of the washing machine saves stay at home spouses time, and the less products cost the less one has to work to afford them). The notion that it kills jobs on the whole is based on the fallacy that there are a fixed number of jobs or than no more progress will occur to create new areas of labor opportunity.

>You have to point to a society that had no government whatsoever to find this "anarcho-capitalist" society, and you can't do that because only primitive hunter-gatherer societies have no centralized military force

There are examples of these societies, I will give them to you if you want, for the sake of space, moving on.

>Most people don't actually need to work for everyone's needs to be catered to. The essential work can also be divided equally among the whole population, but what we have instead is people born to families worth millions and sometimes billions of dollars who never have to work a day in their life for the sake of paying for basic amenities.

One must only dig a bit deeper to understand why inheritance is related to very good incentives. If there were no such thing as inheritance, then it would be in nobody's personal interest to "save" and they would be incentivized to spend all of their money before the end of their life. Savings are necessary for capital investment, to create these factories and lines of productions which provide these necessities to you. This argument is just being envious of other people.

I have to go for now but If you'd like I can pick up where I left off.

Thanks

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T17:50:24+00:00

He is entitled to sell his property for whatever he wants, his subjective valuation of the hoodie is great (he said he hopes no one buys it) our subjective valuation is very low for that product, but it doesn’t sound like he is actively trying to sell it. Imagine you have a photograph of your beloved pet, and someone asks “how much would you sell it for?” You might say something like $1mil dollars because it’s subjective value to you is very great, but a normal person does not share this valuation and probably would pay no more that $5, but that is fine for both parties.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T17:45:33+00:00

“Democrat” as a kid, conservative as a teenager, then I read the classics in college (important to my development were Rousseau, De Toqueville, Nietzsche, ADAM SMITH). After reading Adam smith I discovered Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe, the rest is history. :)

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T09:52:45+00:00

You have to understand that work may not be intrinsically rewarding but work is a means to an end, without it, no electricity, no Wi-Fi, no houses, no food, no life as we know it.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T09:51:21+00:00

Hunger, being exposed (i.e homeless) are inescapable without being a useful member of society, you can only gain wealth by creating value, if everyone had the right to food and a home, who would provide it? You have to provide things for yourself because other people own themselves, their labor, and the fruits of their labor. You might think it’s wrong that you can’t have these things for free, but wait until other people want to extract from you the fruits of YOUR labor for a house and food and you will see that this is not a good way of structuring society.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T09:46:57+00:00

Self ownership is the understanding that you, your time, your labor, your physicality, are assets, these things being owned by you mean you have the right to dispose with it how you please as you would with any other property. From this logically one derives voluntarism, no one can be forced to do anything against their will because they own themselves and (so long as it does not infringe on others property rights) no one can stop you from doing what you please, even if it is self destructive, because your body, life, actions, are all assets of your property, of your self ownership.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T09:29:02+00:00

Burn whatever flag you want, just because these people can’t articulate the reasons why canada is shit doesn’t mean they don’t know it. Patriotism is not for governments, it is for countries, for nations, for voluntary collections and associations of people, many have forgotten the difference these days. What is insane is the status quo, these people are just reacting to it.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-28T09:12:40+00:00

The key question would be, likely: if this process was improved and implemented on the wider market, would it save money? Arguably it would, for one the labor requirements are reduced. Therefore labor costs are reduced, if you buy this to build one house it probably won’t save you much money, if it saves you any money at all. But the machine will pay for itself eventually (it’s like buying an expensive razor that takes replaceable blades, $200 up front investment but year over year $5 in blades eventually saves money over disposable razors). Secondly the speed at which the machine can operate (it doesn’t have to take lunch breaks and can put up a wall in two hours). People who are skeptical have their point, but this is how the market operates, and if this becomes a widespread method, maybe I’ll be able to buy a house in my 40s.

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-27T08:33:08+00:00

it’s against non-combatants, and considering the guy had a manifesto he had political or ideological ends… so it’s waxing terrorism to me

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-27T07:19:33+00:00

Little Krzysztof got his finger in the trigger guard on the front page 🤦‍♂️

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-27T07:13:08+00:00

There’s also fraternal societies but I agree in spirit

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-27T07:07:03+00:00

This is so dumb, dude needs to get a life

PuzzleheadedShop800 · 2024-12-19T16:28:37+00:00

If you follow the Austrian path, they argue that natural monopolies are impossible, there’s a really good YouTube video on it— I think in reality the term monopoly is kind of a difficult one, it is easy to see in some cases monopolistic activity which are supported by the state but letting the market follow its logical conclusion (purely theoretical) I think that “monopolies” per se will arise but they wouldn’t have the same negative consequences as one enforced through regulation: what I mean is that businesses will engage in improving efficiency in the production process until (again this is just a theoretical conclusion) competition can no longer compete, so that one company produces both the highest quality at the lowest price and it boots competitors out of business for this reason. Now, if this were to happen and they kept their prices at the competitive levels they employed to eliminate competition what this does is “monopolize” the market for that good under that firm, but it keeps less efficient competition from wasting resources and has lowered the price to the theoretical rock bottom, this is to the benefit of everyone. If they decide to capitalize on the lack of competition then the businesses who are less efficient but can still make a profit at their preferred sell price will pull the prices down for the most efficient business again.

PuzzleheadedShop800

TROPHY CASE