Cornetto97

Oh my god, seriously, what is going on? What is going on, has twitter ever bothered to do anything about the isis supporters they have floating around, most probably combing twitter for new recruits? No, but we will delete the man who has simply voiced an opinion among the myriad of other opinions that float around. Have we no free speech, the man was arrested more efficiently than the perpetrators of these horrendous attacks. I mean come on europe really, really arrested in his home? This is why social media can backfire as a way to voice the truth, you really have to tread more carefully, especially with twitter.

Yeah, it's practice and mindset, i really thought it would be easy to just say it and spit out some full proof reasoning roght there but yeah, it's quite difficult, just going to have to practice it. Cheers.

Alright i'll have to check it out, i guess it's like the stereotypical movie detective thing of getting into the mind of the murderer. So before i can attempt to spread truth to people i have to understand why they so visciously shut out anything that penetrates their reality. Cheers for the reply.

Thanks for the reply, Interesting insight, so maybe i'm simply thinking too much about the future, and due to that, fear the present, and the possible ramifications And instead i should just ignore the hope, and the future, and focus on meeting the fear head on? and it's an interesting way of looking at fear and hope, because fear implies your thoughts are in the future as oppose to the present, so too does hope, which in turn means you place too much emphasis on the future as oppose to the present, which can create anxiety.

I am quite new to attempting to spread the truth to people, and i am finding it quite hard to ignore any possible social rejection, and shouting down that can often come when countering the popular social ideas that permeate society. I have only succeeded in doing so whith my closest friends whom i have built up enough of a relation with to know that they will respect what i say and hear me out, as oppose to rejecting me and shouting me down. Has anyone here experienced the same thing when first attempting to speak truth with others? Is it something that must be trained in order to speak with conviction and fluidity to others about the truth? Just wanted to get some thoughts on this, and some ways others have countered it.

I'm also new to austrian economics but have been interested in free market ideas for a while so happening upon it was a by-product of my reading into the free market. The solution i'd pose to this question is that the employee now has been trained to provide more value for business A. Now business A have put capital into improving that employee and the employee has put time in improving his ability to be efficient. So now that employee has a practiceable skill that can also increase the efficiency of business A's competitor, business B. therefore in the interest in retaining this competitive advantage which business A have invested capital into, from falling to business B, business A would have it in their best interests to keep the employee satisfied with increased wages, or maybe more annual leave. Also in your example of pressing a button to create more hats, that would actually be a investment in technology for production as oppose to an investment in bettering an employee's skills

Yes i do agree that a more classical liberal cadidate such as raegan or thatcher will be a net positive, however in hostory where has it inevitably ended? USA reverted back to what we see now, an economy slowly crumbling apart under the weight of fiat currency, high taxes, so to has the uk, the 'basic tax rate' is 20%, if you earn anywhere from 31,785 pounds to 150,000 pounds you are taxed at 40%. Let's look at a recent example of chile. Chile broke out of their communist regime of allende, and in the 70s were under pinochet a military dictator who turned to milton friedman and the austrian school of economics in chicago because his central control on the economy was not working. He adopted the ideas of austrian economics, privatised multiple state assets from allende's communist party, privitised education, and saw his economy slowly pull itself out of a rut with classical liberalist free market ideas. Their country was one of the wealthiest - and still is - south american economies. Long story short pinochet held a vote, it became a democracy, still mostly keeping with the free market liberalist ideas from pinochet. Now do you know where they are? They're back with a democratic socialist, who ran her campaign on a platform for free governmnet education, fighting wealth inequality, all the things that grow a state. So maybe it will be better for a small portion of time but it historically has always reverted back to an ever increasing state.

Yes, however if you vote for the candidate who is less 'socialist' in that they don't grow the welfare state, don't impose their high taxes on business, it'll inevitably happen, either way, you are inevitably going to have increased coerive influence, be it higher taxes, trade tarifs, higher business tax, restrictions on licensing for business, property tax. The reason why we still have such things is still constant - the state. These will always happen, as long as we have a state, we will have bought political influence, becasue the state has a monopoly on force. Another reason is fiat money. Fiat money will always have two constants, ever increasing unfunded liabilities, and ever increasing inflation, and they have two constants, respectively, increased taxes for the next generations, and stealing the wealth of the current generations. The way this ties in is, when you have a monopoly control over the money supply and you can constantly print fiat money, you're going to always get special interests pouring money info politics, and you're going to always get politicians spending at will on every single ridiculous program you can think of. Becasue the state has no money it steals money and it prints money, it is the perfect one two punch of power, so whether they be social democrats, conservative, middle sitting, centre left, it doesn't matter because the aforementioned by-products of a state will still be constant. So the people must learn this otherwise they'll continue to flock to the votong booths, and cast their votes unbeknownst to what the value of their vote actually is, and what these constants of state power, which they support with their vote actually means for their livelihood.

it pains me reading this, because it sounds like the majority of you live in a country where your choice to vote is at least upheld. In the land down under (Australia) it's compulsory to vote, even if you don't actually choose a candidate and cast what they refer to here as a 'donkey vote'. Now on the issue i do think that voting in modern big government democracy is an illusion of choice and is one of the last remaining, though very thin and brittle, illusions of political choice, and representative democracy. Special interests have ruined it all and it's an essential reason why the state didn't take very long at all to grow both in USA, Australia and pretty much every liberal democracy there is and has been, or ever will be for that matter. Now voting as an institution is highly immoral in Australia, because you will get a nice fine if you don't cast a vote when you are legible to do so. But given the choice, i really wouldn't see the point as aforementioned special interests taint representative democracy to its core, and also in the USA you have the ridiculous 2 party system. But in Australia we have a nice any party welcome sort of system, with a vast array of small parties, so if one was to be staunchly libertarian, not accept political donations from the 1%, be based on voluntarism, Austrian economics all the good stuff, then I would accept that and cast my vote for them as oppose to a 'donkey vote'. My reasoning is quite simple, it's either we toil to spread the word of a stateless society based on voluntarism, and universal morals in an already sinking civilization or, if the choice arises we can spread such principles on a relatively more afloat civilization, where we aren't using buckets to stop the massive waves of water from sinking it. You see where we are now we have to reverse such indoctrination from government education, show them the virus that is slowly choking society, tell them about universal morals, snap them out of their zombie like following of multiculturalism, among a myriad of other things, then once that is done we have the excruciating task of reviving in them the word 'anarchy' (gasp). But honestly we are a massive - Bernie Sanders fever, wave of socialism sweeping across Europe, mainstream media, Keynesian economics, military industrial complex - leap away from any staunch libertarian party gaining majority type of momentum. I believe that a twentieth century style mass political turmoil is heading our way once again, and i really don't see voting for such a party as stopping this cycle. right now spreading these ideas is the most efficient way to give life boats to the passengers of this sinking ship. so to conclude yes given the right circumstances voting for a party closely aligned to the principles of Ancapism, so as to limit the work needed to get from the status-quo to a truly stateless society, is moral. However if it's the lesser of two evils like let's say ted cruz and Hilary then no, because either way you will be supporting someone who will expand the state and thus continue immoral state programs, and be fundamentally 'evil'. *EDIT... Upon reflection i just realised some fallacies in my argument that i just can't ignore, Firstly is that if i accept that the state always grows in any liberal democracy then voting in a staunch libertarian party will inevitably get us back to the status-quo, furthermore if i accept that the state is immoral then no party that will still essentially be a state can be moral by those standards, so essentially if you know a chronic illness will kill you then it is illogical to say that it is better to accept treatment as oppose to a cure, when one is available of course. Further-further more is that if (as i believe) it is essential to convince people there is something ghastly immoral about the state, and the current organising of society, in order to have any chance of reviving the word anarchy in them, then a status-quo where there is voluntarism and a free market, with very limited government, will scarcely be the climate where you'll have a chance of convincing people the current situation is wrong and thus the chance to guide them along anarchic principles. It's like telling someone to eat because they're hungry when they staunchly believe they aren't hungry. So in conclusion no it is more efficient to continue spreading the word around, instead of just restarting the cycle essentially.

Well when interest rate are artificially lowered money becomes cheaper for both the governmnet to constantly borrow from the central bank, and for banks to constantly lend to the people. When interest rates are kept artificially low, it also means the deposit rate is lowered, meaning the banks now have less incentives to keep extra reserves overnight at the central bank. Since it is more profitable to lend this money out they now have more money available to lend out, and since supply is artificially cranked up, interest rates on your average home loan are lowered. The banks are now much more ready to lend out to the people, the government is now selling bonds at lower interest rates to the fed, and thus spawning more money into existance, credit cards now have even lower repayments, and more money on them. And when the banks don't have enough to keep their reserve amount at the fed, they can do intra bank lending at even lower interest rates. The amount of damage that beaurocrats do when pulling the strings of interest rates is one of the biggest contributors to these 2 - 10 year booms and busts that the average tax payer bears the brunt of. It is truly just amoral, and evil with no contempt for the people who have their savings shattered. The worst is the overwhelming majority can't see what casues it. 1/1000 Mike Maloney quoted it as, 1 out of every thousand peoole don't even realise this slight of hand system called fiat money, taking away their prosperity.

Oh yeah, it has irony all over it, fancy threatening others in the pursuit if uoholding 'democracy' and stopping 'authoritarianism'. It's barely even self defense though, it's completely unjustified, it is extremely ambivalent, and hostile in a way that attempts to dominate the other party and repress them. But yeah it's probably what they see as justified self defense. I would really love to see the response if trump supporters even dared to boycott any other political rally, even if it was mostly peaceful it would be jumped on and sarcely be called self defense. It would be twisted in an emotional wave of histeria by the very people who have boycotted this chicago rally.

Ah so the anti trump protestors protesting trumps authoritarianism, provocation of violence, and divisive speech by provoking violence and shutting down a rally in an extremely authoritarian and divisive way. Out of all the frustrating, low iq tendancies of the left i would have to say their extreme hypocrisy has to take the cake for me. When you see them calling trump supporters 'sheeple', you can't help but look on in bewilderment at their unwavering commitment to stupidity. They're the ones that are so ignorant of their destructive ways, that conversing with a doormat about the origins of the word 'welcome' would be more efficient. It's simply a knee jerk reaction, they feel under threat, their blissful ignorance, and forcefield of social justice are slowly being shattered, and they have now collectively reacted in a way you'd expect a baby to react to having their toy taken away. Difference is the baby won't continue to systemtically pick you apart like a pack of pigeons to an unsuspecting chip, until there is nothing left but them and their coercive state. Even the pigeon will fly away once it realises it's not getting any chips.

On the original question, it is quite interesting, because you see the very same thing happening with stefan. I continuously notice people saying on stefan's videos that they stopped watching when stefan did x or y or because he used to do x or y and has changed. Now when i try to conceptualise why this happens i find myself using my own experience when first happening upon stefan's videos. It was a time when i began to be extremely curious, and even negative about the state of the world i was slowly being intergrated into. I found one of his videos extremely insightful, i immediately subscribed and almost unconsciously my perception of stefan cganged into this beacon where i could go to confirm my prejudices, and guide my views. I began to think 'what would stefan think of this issue', and almost attempt to match my views with stefan's, and retrospectively i almost always thought how would stefan approach this, or would stefan agree with my views on x. I remember now one day i saw stefan's video 'the truth about gun control'. I saw this and immediately clicked on it waiting for a seathing philosophical dismantling of the NRA, i was very dissapointed to say the least and was frustrated by his support of gun laws, but i persisted, and managed to watch it all (completely flipped my views in this and many other issues) This happened in other subsequent videos, and i was frustrated at my previous ignorance, almost unconsciously, and in my imperfection to the standard of stefan. I began not so long ago to become conscious of my comparing to stefan, and hunt for almost perfection to the standards i had created around stefan, and my constant hunt for stefan's confirmation. Very recently i have thought about this, and seen it occur on stefan's video comments, in the examples i gave avove. However many people appear instead to ignore stefan, like a child would ignore a parent in protest of not getting an ice cream. This appears as though it is an attempt to avoid the feelings they get when stefan doesn't confirm their prejudices, and their endeavour to mirror a perfect model they build around stefan is obstructed. Now the way this translates to the question at hand is well, many libertaraians may have unconsciously built this blemish free image of perfection around their own models, and when they see trump, instead of seeing what he actually should represent, a step very much in a far more positive direction, they focus on the traits and policies of trump that oppose this unconscious model they strive to perfect. Thus resulting in discomfort, and either persistance, and critically analysing trump further, or (in most cases i've observed) a complete avoidance and rejection of trump. As to the question of r/k theory, i haven't read into it as in depth as alot of you on this thread appear to have, but would I be right in saying the latter is very much an r selective response?

Ok so let's say business A and business B are competitors. Now let's also assume it is a free market, and they both get produce locally for their inputs. So their fighting to continuously meet market demand for the best price to consumers. Now business A decides to start using overseas exporters, let's say china. Now china has artificially low wage levels, therefore they can gain much cheaper inputs, and meet market demand at a cheaper price than business B. So business A is already gaining cheap exports, and is already going to see their market share go up steadily. Now as the example says, they take control of the exporters in that country so as to stop business B from gaining the cheap exports. Now what this example puts forward is leaning towards failure for business A. Not only would they have to buy up the exporters in that country, an expensive venture, but the possible profitability of those exporters becomes cometely defunct, becasue business A is completely ignoring a demand for exports from business B. So not only would those exporting companies business A gained control of lose a huge amount of profitablitity, but by ignoring the demand created by busines B they would be inviting rivals from moving into the market.

A couple of things here, and you'll get these in stefan's anarchy books, you must understand anarchy does in no way say there will be absolutely no murder, theft, war, corruption etc. Next thing is that it is extremely hard and almost pointless to attempt to predict everything that will happen. We can discuss it as we are now, and put forward different arguments, and reasonings for why it will be better than the status quo, but we can never know for sure. However there are some things we can rationally say, that is that ostracism has been proven through examples provided above to be extremely effective as we are naturally social creatures, who are most productive, And prosperous harmoniously. Also, the prosperity that we know arises from a free market with no central planning and coercive policies will elevate the populations that are the most crime ridden, and doomed to live in squalor becasue of the ever growing dependence on the cancerous welfare state, and its ghastly excuse for an education. But if we can reasonably say that crime rates will very likely not increase and likely decrease, and if we can agree that the state is an extremely forceful and coercive entity that bends morality right around for their own self interest, then we can rationally say that the state is not needed On another note the state doesn't exactly stop a crazed sociopath from murdering you, it sort of just steps in after the fact, unless of course you are able to call the police in time. *i sympathise with you OP, i am quite new to FDR and the idea of a stateless society, but the deeper i peer into it the more i begin to break through what has been drilled into me my entire life.

If you have the money, try putting your money into physical gold, when the economic crisis reaches it's climax - gold historically has made up for the value fiat currency has lost and the huge inflation of central banks - the value will skyrocket. Could be a good cushion to have. Also I would not doubt the prospect of governments attempting to confiscate physical gold so it's best to buy now. They're beginning to slander large physical notes for being used by criminal organisations in the media narrative, who knows in the face of such turmultuous economic and societal times, what they may do.

The problem with socialism is it creates the illusion to the people that they are getting free stuff from the state. socialists have no grasp of economic principles, but the politicians do, but they don't care for them why should they, they get an ever growing cancerous state to do as they please with. The people are under the impression that the state will give them all they need, so why would they care about the simple economic principles that would shatter their illusion of utopia?