- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The Swedish climate campaigner was with other activists at a protest outside a central London hotel.
The Swedish climate campaigner was with other activists at a protest outside a central London hotel.
Are you ignoring all the labor these “capitalists” and their workers do to provide you the goods we all wholly demand upon? All of this is done by social cooperation between both of them by voluntary association.
This would work if the price system would actually work as intended (free from the intervention of the State) to distribute all the scarce resources in a free-market setting.
By wanting the Monopoly of Violence to step in? To call the international organizations (spoilers: they don’t care about us) to intervene in foreign countries?
They can actually do that because of the existence of “common goods” and of the monopolical privileges granted by the same State, such as subsidies, regulations discreetly affecting SMEs, the lack of enforcement of private property to protect those “common goods”, etc.
On the contrary; they love subsidies, they love intellectual property, they love FIAT money, they love the monopolical privileges: basically, their activities depend entirely on the mere existence of corporatocracy.
Man wtf. We had over 100 Years of almost free market and look where we are now.
Businesses in germany have to pay a fuckload of taxes and still get richt as fuck.
If there is no free market on a national scale, than there is a almost anarchytical free market on an international scale.
We dont need a free market anymore. We need responsibility for what these people got rich on. And they have to pay back what they destroyed. Like everybody else, when you destroy sth, either on purpose or without, you need to pay.
I don’t know what you interpret as “free market”, but the mere existance of a Monopoly of Violence, lobbying, manipulation of money, state licenses, blah, blah, blah… is not free at all.
Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics.
What about protectionism, tariffs, special licenses, international regulations, “common goods”, the World Bank Group, the IMF, and very much any kind of coercion made by “Welfare” States?
“Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another’s property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive.”
What?
You mean all these private international businesses have a hard time going around worldwide regulations?
Do you know, that even with the sanctions, russia exports and imports (almost) as usual, because internationally nobody cares? And if sb cares, they will make a daughtercompany in no time which does the trade?
Quite the contrary; the State by lobbying, subsidies and “international aids” is actually benefiting the giant businesses, as the coercion made by the State harms the SME’s and we the common people to trade with other countries.
Basically, I’m describing corporatocracy (the State is dominated by corporate business interests).
By “russia exports and imports” (fallacious use of collective nouns), I’ll interpret it as businesses affected by the sanctions.
As I said before: “Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics”. You can’t just infere those sanctions are not working from having analyzed statistics and economic history. You need first an economic theory that tries to explain how the economy works by identifying the causal relationships between economic actions and events.
I’d recommend you to read about Mises’s Human Action (praxeology based on methodological individualism).