Originally posted by ilikecomicsyou’ve got it
@ BlakeThe Ludlow massacre was a result of the trade union, which is an extension of the state.
Originally posted by ilikecomicslooks like a return to the dark ages with the moors trading between Europe and Asia. Hey dude, free market lmao.
@ BlakeI'm addressing you saying Locke is the father of liberalism.
Yes, and libertarianism is the natural outgrowth of classical liberals after progressives hijacking the term.
This is an article that shows where my reasoning comes from
https://mises.org/library/history-labor-unions-colonial-times-2009
Originally posted by ilikecomicsthere’s so much wrong with this.
And yet when the state interferes in trade like prohibition or the war on drugs it's also catastrophic.The state doesn't restrain them, it's a discount for the company.
For example, if du pont contaminates drinking water and has to pay the state a couple million instead of paying out restitution to it's victims (how justice would work in a free market with justice based retributive justice), which would include massive inter generational fertility rates, baby mortality, lower IQs, etc. The bill would be immeasurable, again in contrast to a million dollar bill that only a destructive company, who wasn't accountable to it's victims, could afford to pay.
How does the war on drugs ****etry be because of government? It was funded by private prisons who weren’t voted in.
That millions of dollars would go to politicians who have to rely on campaign support. Now I know the US has lobbying, but dumbass liar politicians still get voted out for making dumb decisions. Like Trump 😛
Originally posted by ilikecomicstl;dr
Why is it either a monopoly of coercion or dark ages for you ?
Originally posted by ilikecomicsThe dark ages were the libertarianism rule you’re talking about. Spoiler alert, a lot of wars. :/
This is an article that shows where my reasoning comes fromhttps://mises.org/library/history-labor-unions-colonial-times-2009
Originally posted by ilikecomicstl;dr
Why is it either a monopoly of coercion or dark ages for you ?
Originally posted by ilikecomics
This is an article that shows where my reasoning comes fromhttps://mises.org/library/history-labor-unions-colonial-times-2009
Originally posted by ilikecomics
And yet when the state interferes in trade like prohibition or the war on drugs it's also catastrophic.The state doesn't restrain them, it's a discount for the company.
For example, if du pont contaminates drinking water and has to pay the state a couple million instead of paying out restitution to it's victims (how justice would work in a free market with justice based retributive justice), which would include massive inter generational fertility rates, baby mortality, lower IQs, etc. The bill would be immeasurable, again in contrast to a million dollar bill that only a destructive company, who wasn't accountable to it's victims, could afford to pay.
I wonder what would happen if there wasn't any governments to enact environmental protection legislation.
I'm sure all those corporations would just use their profits to clean up their mess like they're so well known for.
That's why superfund sites are fake news.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
where the **** did women of colour come into this? 4fs.
You're missing my point. Blake gave an example of how lobbying results in bad outcomes for the public. I demonstrate how that same lobbying can result in very good outcomes.
Government itself is a tool, and the politicians are self interested dickholes. Everyone knows this, it is what it is.
Its through the profit motive that things like "feminism" and "black lives matter" gets airwaves. If there was no money in it, CNN or The Guardian or whoever wouldn't give a shit about it.
But there IS. And so they DO.
And so Government cares, because they care about whatever their campaign financers care about.
And of course, there are genuine activists out there, and they take whatever opportunities they can get to make things better for people.
That's how realpoltiks actually works. Some greedy ****er is always in the chain, and its that greed that makes social progress possible.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I wonder what would happen if there wasn't any governments to enact environmental protection legislation.I'm sure all those corporations would just use their profits to clean up their mess like they're so well known for.
That's why superfund sites are fake news.
Rothbard has written on this if your interested in reading it.
https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution
It's not like an caps are like ' my argument is perfect as long as no one asks about really obvious shit.'
Originally posted by cdtmlobbyists are politicians and company owners. Take Dick Cheney as a prime example.
You're missing my point. Blake gave an example of how lobbying results in bad outcomes for the public. I demonstrate how that same lobbying can result in very good outcomes.Government itself is a tool, and the politicians are self interested dickholes. Everyone knows this, it is what it is.
Its through the profit motive that things like "feminism" and "black lives matter" gets airwaves. If there was no money in it, CNN or The Guardian or whoever wouldn't give a shit about it.
But there IS. And so they DO.
And so Government cares, because they care about whatever their campaign financers care about.
And of course, there are genuine activists out there, and they take whatever opportunities they can get to make things better for people.
That's how realpoltiks actually works. Some greedy ****er is always in the chain, and its that greed that makes social progress possible.