free market ideas

anonymous asked:

The ideas behind capitalism aren't inherently wrong. The basic idea of incentivizing the creation of increasingly-efficient or successful systems through profit has been the genesis of much of the modern world. Capitalism only descends into villainy once it stops efficiently conquering difficulties in engineering or supply and instead attacks 'difficulties' in legislation or the reward system. The issue isn't that capitalism is bad, it's that capitalism shouldn't mix with policy. Ever.

I see you arguing that those who collect profit are those who do the creating, and I raise you “labor is the source of all social wealth and capitalists exploit the working class’s labor to collect profit”. There is no ethical way to conduct capitalism free of exploitation – those who own the workplaces and resources get their profits off the backs of workers, who have nothing meaningful to sell in this market economy but their labor. You can argue that maybe a competitive market economy and a profit incentive laid the groundwork for many of the tech innovations we have today, but first you have to demonstrate that the capitalist class structure was necessary as well; and it wasn’t necessary, considering the fact that worker-managed co-ops still compete for profit but don’t have the internal class structure that creates massive wealth and power inequality. (And that inequality makes it all the easier for “capitalism and policy to mix”.) In other words, mutualism would have been a *far* more humanitarian market system with the qualities you’re describing, without the major drawbacks of capitalism.

(It’s all kind of a moot point now anyway, because we now have the technology to liberate people from the grand majority of toil and poverty. Just automate everything that you can, democratize it, and distribute goods according to human need rather than on the basis of profits for a select few. Seriously, capitalism is far more autocratic and centralized than you learn about in the political science textbooks, and it’ll take a system with a far more decentralized power structure (socialism, or even mutualism) to remedy the wealth inequality, the wars, the climate change, and the widespread alienation.)


a recent incident on a United Airlines plane flight involving an overbooked passenger has served as an occasion for certain people to begin to rail against the insensitivity of “Capitalism” once again (or what this blog calls Free Enterprise). But the free enterprise system is not just certain segments of itself, it is the entire system of interacting parts; including the free press. Both individual citizens and the free press critiquing the service of businesses before the audience of the general public is the fruit of the Free Enterprise system. The free press is about a free market place of ideas. But there is no free market place of ideas where there is no free market. Without economic independence, there can be no intellectual and political independence.  What defines free enterprise is precisely that there is an open sphere that provides alternatives; including alternative voices and visions. The market does not dictate that businesses will not make imprudent, foolish or immoral decisions. What the market dictates is that these decisions will not survive. The actions of an individual business is not the action of the market; the eventual fate of those actions is the action of the market.

This is far more than can be said for a state run system in which all alternative visions have been banished, and are therefore unable to challenge the official policy..

Be friends with people who disagree with you.

Don’t get me wrong here, don’t be friends with people BECAUSE they disagree with you. I’ve cut people out of my life over disagreements. I’d imagine most of you have. It’s normal and it’s bound to happen.

What I’m trying to say is that you CAN disagree with people on big issues and still be friends. You SHOULD still be friends. After all, don’t we have some common ground as human beings? Can’t we see some sense in opinions that contradict our own? Can’t we look into an opponent and see the same good intentions that we have? What if you’re wrong?

Diversity of opinions is a beautiful thing. I’m not saying you should support people spreading hate speech, harassing people, stuff like that. I’m saying you should support your friends whose only mistake is having a different opinion than the one you have. They may be genuinely wrong in what they believe. They may be genuinely stupid. Who the hell cares?

If someone is doing nothing wrong, but simply THINKING something wrong, I don’t think that is grounds to ditch your friendship. Again, I understand that shit fucking happens. Just don’t deprive yourself of a good friend and that TRUE diversity in the free market of opinions over your ego.

anonymous asked:

So with the antifa action at that Trump rally today (6/3) a whole bunch of my liberal friends have been whining about how "we shouldn't stoop to their level waaaah". When I interject and point out that this is how fascism must be fought they whine about how we (antifa) are "no better than the fascists!" I know you guys get this a lot, but what's the best and most concise response to use to explain why violence is a sometimes-necessary tool to fight the fash?

Ugh.  We’re seeing a lot of this lately.  So let’s go over a few things, shall we?

Like we said a couple of months ago, liberals - who have demonstrated throughout history that they have no fucking clue what to do about fascism - always seem to trot out the same old tired horseshit about antifa:

-you can’t fight hate with hate;
-if you fight fascism militantly, you’re just as bad as they are;
-nazis should have the right to publicly advocate and organize genocide because “free speech;”
-if we just ignore the fascists they’ll go away;
-shutting down racist events won’t change their minds about their racism;
-the police and the state will protect us from fascists;
-we need to “shine a light” on the racists’ bankrupt ideas, so everyone can see their ideology for what it is, in the free market of ideas blah blah blah

All of which essentially boils down to:

NAZIS AND COPS: we want to beat up minorities. We’re going to do that now.
ANTIFA: we aren’t going to let you.
LIBERALS: uwu don’t fight hate with hate. Antifa is sooo violent.
ME: they’re literal fucking nazis who are beating people up.
LIBERALS: that’s their opinion and you gotta let them. It’s the rules.

& yet you never see liberals confronting WW2 veterans with this “logic,” do you?

As we’ve said before, iberals aren’t exactly experts when it comes to dealing with fascists and their  liberal “strategies” of non-confrontation, “debate,” and giving fascists free publicity are counterproductive, dangerous, and irresponsible,  The people that have been dealing with fascists for decades - and the victims of fascism - know what it takes to stop fascists and racists from doing real harm.  As Holocaust survivor Frank Frison put it: 

“If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many “fair-minded” people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over … People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests.”   

So who’s right about how to stop fascists?  Let’s hear from three different perspectives (starting with Frank)

FRANK FRISON, HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR: “If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else.”
ADOLF HITLER: “Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.”
LIBERALS: No need for violence, just write a really witty editorial about it :)

You decide who’s right.

winnieton  asked:

Hey, Hank. A student from my university recently wrote an opinion piece saying we shouldn't vote because the government is a bully and an enforcer that we shouldn't support. He said those who vote are partly to blame for all the terrible things the government does, and the only time he will vote is if it is to get rid of a pre-existing law. He ended it by saying "If you want change, put your arguments on the free market of ideas and see what happens. Good ideas can go a long way." Thoughts?

Some people think that the world is really really really deeply effed and they just can’t reconcile interfacing with the existing system. I think those people are really wrong and that they are often driven more by a desire to feel exceptional than by any actual understanding of reality.

None of us alone are important at all. But together we control the future of the world. This is a great gift and I find that those who turn away from it despite having strong opinions are usually insufferable egomaniacs.


Fucking Vote.

After going through seven years of Magic: The Gathering forum threads I’ve come to the conclusion that fandoms actually do function much better not when “everyone’s opinions can be heard uwu” but when shitheads with shitty beliefs are immediately burned out of the fandom as quickly as possible.

The benefits to ideological tyranny are so obviously enormous, whereas the downsides are basically nonexistent as far as I can see. Literally the only downside is that some people are going to whine about how you don’t support freeze peach. So if you don’t mind dealing with that annoyance, you’re golden.

I’m sorry but there’s just zero evidence that an alternate conception of fandom spaces works. Nada. Zip. Zilch. We just have this obsessive belief that forums and fandom spaces should be principled on a free market of ideas, even though there’s nothing on earth to back that claim up.

In the absence of moderators given the ability to make those calls of COURSE we have a culture based in callouts. I mean @staff won’t even ban actual neonazis from this website SO OF COURSE PEOPLE TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN FUCKING HANDS. Pretending like that isn’t the structural reality of this website and complaining about callout culture in the abstract as though it developed out of nowhere just plays into reactionary narratives and encourages people to be belligerent shitheads.

anonymous asked:

Hello! I've seen your post/reply concerning liberalism and I wonder, what do you think makes liberalism (as such) incompatible with antifa? I consider myself a liberal and I have always sympathized with antifa (and would like to get involved with it), however I've seen a lot of negativity about liberals and liberalism and it confuses me... Thank you!

Antifa are often subjected to criticisms and attacks from two sides.  On one side, there are fascists and racists - the people from which we expect to be attacked.  But the other side are people that claim to be against fascism and racism and generally see themselves as aligning somewhere on the left, yet seem most intent on attacking antifa if they don’t personally agree with our time-tested strategies and tactics.

These people tend to come at us with the same arguments, over and over:
-you can’t fight hate with hate;
-if you fight fascism militantly, you’re just as bad as they are;
-nazis should have the right to publicly advocate and organize genocide because “free speech;”
-if we just ignore the fascists they’ll go away;
-shutting down racist events won’t change their minds about their racism;
-the police and the state will protect us from fascists;
-we need to “shine a light” on the racists’ bankrupt ideas, so everyone can see their ideology for what it is, in the free market of ideas blah blah blah

A lot of us lump those people and their bullshit arguments together in the category “liberals.”  Mostly because we don’t have time to deal with their fascist-enabling, collaborationist nonsense.  

But maybe it’s not fair for us to call them “liberals?”  Is there a better term that you’d care to suggest?