ancap

21 ms·

151.
by ancap 11y ago
>The socialists governments in Western Europe haven't failed yet. "Yet" is the operative word there. Often socialism is applied, at least at first, in a very limited fashion, but then expand as the natural consequences com
152.
by ancap 11y ago
>But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social" in it?). Socialism says two people do not
153.
by ancap 11y ago
Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that. Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper. The thing that
154.
by ancap 11y ago
Why? We have had "automation" in some form or another for many millennia and we have not needed a "basic income". Every technological advancement from the invention of hand tools, to creating complex machines can be loos
155.
by ancap 11y ago
In the past century we have countless examples of socialism failing, yet its proponents devise some new scheme, some new brand and try to sell it as if something will be different this time. Socialism will always fail because it is contradi
156.
by ancap 11y ago
You probably didn't read the article because two sections below the one you linked ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Legacy_and_critic... ) states: > Some economic historians have observed that Standar
157.
by ancap 11y ago
You say that as if government action against Standard Oil was some noble act. Standard Oil helped facilitate great improvements to the average Americans standard of living.
158.
by ancap 11y ago
When I compare my life to those of people who lived 50, 100, or more years ago, the majority of the things I value most came from capitalism.
159.
by ancap 11y ago
I'd like it simpler than that--0% for all incomes less than infinity.
160.
by ancap 11y ago
>US tax code is an abomination of deductions and credits Funny, I thought the part where they take your money was the evil part.
161.
by ancap 11y ago
You are not describing a shortage as defined in economics. Re-read my previous comment. You are not even describing a monopoly because there are still alternative brands, even luxury brands, which people can buy. Otherwise any brand would b
162.
by ancap 11y ago
Explain how artificial scarcity could exist in a free market
163.
by ancap 11y ago
>You can have perpetual shortages on the supply side that keep prices up. The entire luxury goods market relies on this, as an example. You'll have to go into more depth on your example. I'm not sure to what you're referri
164.
by ancap 11y ago
Not exactly. In this case it is the government which is mandating the prices. While market prices would naturally rise due to increased demand, the statement "because people are drinking it too much" does not necessarily denote in
165.
by ancap 11y ago
>Indeed. A lot of big bank behavior is due to their shareholders demanding more profit. That seems a bit silly, don't you think? As if when presented with two options the executives are going to choose the less profitable one unless
166.
by ancap 11y ago
I would suspect that was not the case 50 years ago. There are plenty of "medical tourist" destinations where you can go to get a very complicated medical procedure done and they will tell you exactly how much it will cost before h
167.
by ancap 11y ago
I'm not sure why this should come to surprise anyone. The big banks have always been in favor of government intervention in the market. They don't want a free market because 1) it's very possible that parts of their business
168.
by ancap 11y ago
>But the healthcare industry basically NEVER met the assumptions necessary for a free market to exist in the first place. Please expound on the history of this (the "NEVER" part)and also enumerate on what the "assumptions
169.
by ancap 11y ago
To truly see any trend, we would need to look at not just before the law, but many years before the law. This is one of those sneaky tricks advocates for government intervention use (or fall victim to). To prove the efficacy of OSHA, for ex
170.
by ancap 11y ago
>There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is. >There are also situations
171.
by ancap 11y ago
There has been plenty written on how those things could be privatized (see the writings of Murray Rothbard and Walter Block). Regarding your earlier comment about "a debt to society", no one is in debt to society for those things,
172.
by ancap 11y ago
I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.
173.
by ancap 11y ago
You are again conflating that society is synonymous with the state.
174.
by ancap 11y ago
>"Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level. I'm not sure you know what a "neocon" is. Neocons derived from Trotskyism and are found in both major U.S. political parties. Neoconservatism has don
175.
by ancap 11y ago
>No, they are compensated in what is agreed to by both sides Yes, and if they were not made better off by it they would have never agreed to it. >which is not necessarily fair or representative of the part they played in building the
176.
by ancap 11y ago
I have seen this argument expressed several times on HN and I find it quite puzzling. To paraphrase the argument goes something like: "Society giveth and society taketh away" Implied in the argument is that the state is synonymous
177.
by ancap 11y ago
Flawed how? Who was shorted? Everyone involved in the system worked and earned the agreed upon amount. >disproportionately rewards "you" over the network that actually did much of the heavy lifting You seem to advocate the labo
178.
by ancap 11y ago
I'm not sure why the down votes. Your comment demonstrates perfectly why it's absurd to compare paying taxes (compulsory) to paying for some private club (voluntary).
179.
by ancap 11y ago
> the engine of capitalism starts to drop in efficiency because it's choking on too high a amount of misrouted investments in some areas, and not enough in others. The "misrouted investments" you speak of, are only possibl
180.
by ancap 11y ago
>consensual reality That sounds even move elusive than the unicorns

More ›