We need a man like this for president. Has there ever been someone so based?

We need a man like this for president. Has there ever been someone so based?

youtube.com/watch?v=3kx__dnAWqQ

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10
youtube.com/watch?v=iJNEjq7I5Is
youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls
youtube.com/watch?v=EPuW3W15oPE
youtube.com/watch?v=DhI8YPmTAw8).
youtube.com/watch?v=SJThAmAExtg).
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>inventor of (((neoliberal economics)))
No thanks.

whoops, forgot Cred Forums was retarded

>jewish neoliberal globalist

yeah I'm going to pass

>follows babbie's first jewish economist without an ounce of critical thought
>calls anyone else retarded

Friedman was a huge proponent of capitalism and free enterprise.The opposite of that is state socialism. Would that be preferable to you? Do you enjoy the government having a strong role in our economy?

>free trade creates the American middle class
>an ethnic Jew comes along and tries to remind everyone of that amidst rampant government economic intervention
>"LOL fuck ((capitalism)) let's tank the economy for the white race!"

Neolibs are against everything Friedman said.

Neoliberalism is not free market capitalism. Also free trade did not create the American middle class. Please look into how the global economy actually worked after WWII. There was nothing "free" about it.

>neoliberal

You sound like a fucking Salon.com contributor. Either go write an article about how capitalism marginalizes minorities or something or get your head out of your ass.

Neoliberals agree with most of what Friedman said actually. Friedman was the one who underestimated just how far certain (((interests))) were willing to manipulate his stupid utopian economic philosophy in order to enrich themselves and strengthen the state.

>"Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy."

He was a huge proponent of globalism you dumb goy

yes that's right goy

blindly accept globalism without a second's hesitation

Remember if you don't blindly follow jewish economics you're a "communist"

This happens because we still have big government in our country. Big government+powerful corporations creates a massive amount of power and influence for both.

Make government smaller so they cannot benefit from corporations and vice versa, and competition will stop companies from becoming monopolistic.

It won't be perfect, but it's better than government sponsored corporatism.

but in practice it means giving trillions of dollars to wall street jews so they can destroy the economy then deregulating wall street so it can rape the economy with endless debt bubbles.

you kikes always seem to leave that part out.

Then it means outsourcing all the jobs to China and bringing in millions and millions of illegal immigrants to bring down wages.

>(((Friedman)))
There's your refutation.

I want the government with the correct ideology to have a strong role in the economy until such a time as it can be left without Jews and their allies subverting it for globalist purposes.

that's 0.2% of our gdp. big deal.

No. Never.

Milton Friedman was the perfect blend of intelligence and clarity.

Adam Smith may have been more of an advance, but Milton brought it to the masses.

at what point did I say anything about globalism? Please go get your personal aide, the internet is a bad place for the mentally disabled.

What's your alternative anyway? Bring shitty factory jobs back to the U.S. because American people totally want those jobs and prices of everything won't skyrocket. I'm sure paying factory workers 15 dollars an hour to make paper clips will have no consequences.

"We currently have [##] employees of the Department of Energy... and every one of them causing trouble."

- M. Friedman

(redacted because I forgot the figure)

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Friedman was a globalist. His ideas promote a globalized (i.e. shitty) economy. This is a fact that you cannot deny no matter how hard you try.

Wall Street has the power they do partially because of our government. Who bails them out whenever they fuck up?

Wall Street has their grubby little hands all over Washington.

I responded to someone else about those shitty jobs

>Make government smaller

the result is giving the banking industry power

Except most of our GDP is worthless, unproductive financial betting.

We're bleeding our productive part of the economy by moving all the real jobs to China while the only "booming" industry left is debt creation (finance)

Friedman is a globalist, neoliberal kike

if you support him you are on par with a communist.

Again, I'm forced to conclude that you are, in fact, retarded.

I never denied that he was a globalist. Watching a lot of Alex Jones, lately?

Why don't you address the second part of my comment?

Jews subvert through government policy not through the free market!

Where do you think The Fed came from? Friedman certainly didn't support it.

How about some of this shit!

Q: "Why do we have so many millionaires...[and people with more money than they need]"

A: "[Bitch, my name is Milton F and I'm going to change your life"]

Me: Fucking watch this Cred Forums, it's like two minutes.

youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10

> globalized (i.e. shitty) economy
> One country has Oil
> Another has Rice
> Yet another has Steel
> These countries trading rather than sticking to what they have within their artificial "borders" is a bad thing

"We blockade our enemies in war time to stop them from getting goods from us. With tariffs we do to ourselves in peace time what we do to your enemies in a time of war."

Calling someone a globalist isn't an argument and shows you lack nuance friend.

>(((Friedman)))
A """(((man)))""" like this is why the world is fucked up in the first place.

>give all the power in society to the corporations goy, the government is evil
>oy vey the corporations took over the government and are using it to control society
>clearly this is the government's fault!


fuck off, jew

As you can see here we have a perfect example of libertarian autism

they actually think that globalism is about trade and not lowering wages

Yeah. Those filthy jews, creating products that we need and use. That's much more insidious than coercive state actors.

LOOK AT HOW MY IPHONE IS DESTROYING MY LIFE. GET OUT OF MY LIFE JEW!.

Not an argument. '(((())))' is for one an obviously pernicious agenda (like mass immigration) is pushed by a Jew -- thereby implicating Jews in such an agends's advancement --it is not a refutation of idea itself.

>both countries have x
>country A is a brown shitskin country while country B is not
>country A makes bank by shipping x to country B, destroying the domestic x market
>country B no longer makes x and all of those jobs are replaced by low paying jobs selling x in retail stores

Sounds lovely.

i fucking love milton friendman only degenerate retards don't get economics, like this retard.
neck yourself you commie fuck

Pic is related, sp00ky tier economics

youtube.com/watch?v=iJNEjq7I5Is

Nominal wages =/= Real wages.

false dichotomy

Just because we don't like socialism doesn't mean we have to subject ourselves to the kind of unrestricted free trade and globalism that would result in an equalization of wages between all countries.

you do sound like a communist, I have to say

>waaah, why can't I be a violent parasite!

Out of the helicopter it's goes

It's a mutually beneficial relationship, friendo!
Politician: Campaigning is extremely expensive, how can I ever afford that?

CEO: Damn, this new regulation really fucks up my profits. I know, let's fund this politician and in return, they'll get rid of this regulation.

he advocates a much much smaller government and no central bankers which does not align with globalisim you fucking disinfo shill kill yourself

> Country A has an educated wealthy populace
> Country B as an uneducated poor populace
> Country B can produce X cheaper than country A, allowing people in Country B to feed and educate their children
> Country A benefits from cheaper X which allows Country A to now invest in Y.

Kind does sound lovely doesn't it?

your a fucking retard. he want to replace central banks role with algorithms which gives central banks next to no power. you are so fucking full of shit

It wouldn't, though. Losing shitty factory jobs to foreign countries who work for shit wages only affects unskilled workers who aren't capable of more than said shitty factory job.

Any person in the U.S. who has at least a high school education should be qualified for a better job than that. Go to trade school for a year or two and you can make a pretty decent salary.

Only retards need to worry.

Environments of high regulation aid giant corporations. Large companies can adapt to heavily regulated environments moreso than small and medium businesses - whose primarily advantages are their nimbleness and low cost structures. Large companies are more likely to encourage heavy regulation, then lobby to acquire phase-ins or exemptions. That's one reason why *big* companies almost wholly support socialist politicians, while small and medium companies support conservatives.

jews create debt you drooling retard they don't "produce" anything of tangible worth.

Debt only creates a bubble of credit and speculation

were you even alive when the 2008 crash happened? It happened because jews gave bad mortgages to Mexicans and blacks then committed fraud saying those loans were "triple A" rated and sold it on the market to idiots.

Eventually they created giant pyramids of debt that eventually came crashing down ruining life for millions of people.

Honestly people as oblivious as you are to reality just need to be locked up for your own safety.

real wages are stagnant while prices and debt continue to skyrocket

you sound like a jew I have to say

>Senator, let's get rid of those pesky financial regulation!
>Sure thing Mr. Goldmansachsenberg
>oops I accidentally the entire economy,
>no problems here have trillions of free dollars


>he advocates

he advocated globalism above everything else

giving the central banks no power puts all power in the hands of the private banking system

in other words you are now owned by Goldman Sachs.

Okay, so basically my analogy should have been the reverse, but my point is that corporations benefit the most from government action.

You can't just say "no u", maybe you should crawl into the oven Schlomo.

Yep. This would be facilitated even more if you got rid of minimum wage laws and guaranteed college loans artificially increasing demand for shitty college degrees that have low societal and economic yields.

>Senator, let's get rid of those pesky financial regulation!
>Sure thing Mr. Goldmansachsenberg
>oops I accidentally the entire economy,
>no problems here have trillions of free dollars

You do realize you just agreed with me...

> real wages are stagnant while prices and debt continue to skyrocket

It might help if you defined what you mean when you say globalism.

>if you regulate wall street wall street benefits
>if you make murder illegal, murderers benefit

>neolib good goy calling anyone else jewish

More like
>country A allows country B's citizens to come into their country in order to undercut their own citizen's wages
>eventually becomes poorer

it's not just factory jobs

H1Bs for example are not for low skill jobs.

And we have clearly seen preferential treatment for H1B visas over the native population because they can't negotiate pay or change employers if they don't like the wage they're receiving.

A man like Friedman would find this situation perfectly acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that I am of the belief that a little bit of protectionism is not, and will never be a bad thing. We should be looking out for our own population to some degree instead of throwing our hands in the air and letting paco do the work for half the wage with no benefits.

youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls

the main aspects of globalism are outsourcing and mass immigration both which exist to lower wages while increasing prices (especially of housing) and debt

not in the slightest

deregulating wall street caused all our problems

the blame for all our current debt problems can be laid at the feet of the Friedmanites and Atari Democrats.

Right back at you. You don't even know my political position, yet you're calling me a jew despite advocating for systems that benefit Jewish bankers.

I'm not buying it, Schlomo. If you're such a mighty anti-Semite, why do you keep advocating for bankers?

Exactly. Then people would actually realize the value of their education and treat like any other financial investment instead of "doing what they love" and becoming NEET.

Congratulations, you are now arguing Friedman's position.

Financial institutions being coerced to give out sub-prime mortgages by the federal government so politicians could posture about how much they cared about brown people is not (((leoliberal))) economic policy.

Can't argue with that. Problem I see is that because of statism there are so many barriers to entry for workers and small business that the labour market is inflexible and can't utilize all the excess labour lying around to create real growth, not to mention the welfare state.

>why do you keep advocating for bankers

Uh I think they should all be lit on fire

I'm not a Libergtarian that thinks kike economics is "ok"

>coerced by the government

You mean by Robert Rubin who was himself a member of Goldman Sachs?

If you, as a large corporation, have the government enact legislation that creates bigger and more barriers to entry, it destroys their competition.

Case in point: Uber.

Many cities will not allow Uber because they claim Uber violates pricing disclosure and safety regulations.

Taxi companies benefit from this because they are established and already meet these regulations(which are pretty fucking arbrtrary).

Oh I get it, you want them to be lit on fire so you can become the banker. Gotcha Schlomo.

You're a communist kike.

He's not based.

>He un-ironically believed in the NAP

Uber is not a financial institution

wtf are you babbling about?

Finance and speculation are unproductive

Everyone should transition to the old German system where funding and credit was only focused on investment and production

This is one of the main policies the Germans were fighting for

You are literally calling the nazis jews at this point.

If a person is willing to do the same work that you do for less money, I don't see a problem. That's negotiation. In the long run, these people won't be happy taking a huge pay cut and will want to negotiate for more money. If they are willing to work for shit pay, they are ultimately hurting themselves.

Yet here you are saying that the government should tax me in order to fund their operation to stick their dick into these unproductive enterprises to pick winners and losers. Gee thanks. I wonder why you want all that money flowing your way, you greedy fucking kike.

"How many of you have worked a 12 hour day and been paid 78 cents" -Milton Friedman.

Do you even know what communism is?

Characterizing the status quo as "free trade" just isn't true. Free trade doesn't need million-page NAFTA, TPP, etc. documents that have to be hidden from the public. It'd very literally be 1 line: "you can import/export whatever you want from/to whoever you want; no tariffs, no regulations."

In actuality, it's the return of mercantilism where financial and corporate elites in bed with the political class, enrich themselves at the expense of the citizenry.

Yes.

>Uber is not a financial institution

No, they're a company. A company that is being damaged by regulations that favor bigger, more established companies. Which was precisely my point.

His ideas only work with strong private sector unions.

eh, I have always felt like Thomas Sowell was superior at articulating his ideas better. Also, Thomas Sowell incorporates culture into his analysis of market systems more than Miltion does which makes Sowell's analysis more interesting imo.

In the long run, the native population will be unemployed or working for the same wage and have the same benefits as the Taiwanese worker in a sweat shop on the other side of the world.

The end goal of purely free trade is equalization.

Black economics man is a literal shill now and should not be taken seriously.

What you don't like equality goy? What are you, a racist?

Then why would a communist want to take the place of a banker? Wages would be the same for everyone in a communist society, so a banker and a toll booth worker would make the same amount. What would be the incentive to become a banker then?

no he isn't you moron. its obvious you are the fucking shill here

According to Larry Elder Thom Sowell hasn't voted in years. He dislikes republican policy since Reagan I guess.

>government should tax me in order to fund

taxes aren't used to "fund" anything

You think the government needs your worthless pieces of paper?

You do realize that any cash sent in to teh government when you pay income tax is just shredded right? And only a tiny percent of money is in any way physical

99% of "money" is just a few bytes of information on a computer.

Uber isn't comparable to Wall Street

Except for the fact that the average American should be more educated than most of these immigrants and able to secure much better jobs. You would only need to worry about skilled workers from other countries, and even then they would be negotiating for higher pay because companies would be competing for them.

>Uber isn't comparable to Wall Street

Uber is not Wall Street in my analogy. That would be the taxi companies established in the cities.

Both countries will see a mutual increase in standard of living, it's just that the poorer country will see a faster rate of economic growth relative to the richer one.

I'm sorry to say that "more educated" does not overpower "cheaper" in the real world, my friend

which is why H1Bs are so damning for the native population

you think poos produce better code than us? when they're significantly cheaper it doesn't even fucking matter anymore

Yeah except that isn't happening. This shit is why empirical evidence is so important.

there will be the opposite of growth for the richer country for everyone except the employer

It does though. In certain jobs, a high level of skill doesn't really matter I can admit, but in others it is absolutely essential.

Do you think hospitals are going to skimp out on neurosurgeons just because they are cheaper? Or do you think a company will hire a shitty, but cheap architect to build their new building in a new location?

Some companies might choose the route of hiring cheaper, but others might realize that it's a bad idea and having a solid, qualified labor force that is smaller but tightly knit will work out better for them.

No shit, fuckheads. Why do you think the Fed's interests rates are so low? We have a massive debt bubble in a few sectors as a result of bad government incentives that's stalling further investment in the private sector. You're not looking at it from all the angles. If you did, you'd tally up all the market distortions from regulation and money-printing that have created the toxic fiscal environment we have.

>Country A benefits from cheaper X which allows Country A to now invest in Y.

Except because the markets are separated and there is very little competition with transnationals, not only is X the same value, it may even increase. Transnationals only compete with nationals as such the "lowest" price they need to charge is always equal to the lowest national price. Meaning they keep the company gets the profit and the country loses jobs.

>jewish

These videos, lmao, it's like an infomercial for Reaganomics

>Do you think hospitals are going to skimp out on neurosurgeons just because they are cheaper? Or do you think a company will hire a shitty, but cheap architect to build their new building in a new location?

Absolutely, but the hospital is a bad example.

But the reason our buildings don't collapse like China's is not so much that our architects are better than the fact that we have building codes and standards.

Regardless, from your own examples you would seek to fuck over majority of the population in your own country.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've just said.

>shit the markets are tanking
>better blame the federal reserve!

You do realize that this shit was happening way before central banking was a thing right? The Boom - Bust cycle is inherent to capitalism.

>pro-capitalist argument

Fuck you k-kike!!

Yes. Capitalism is an imperfect system because human beings are not perfect rational economic actors. I would never suggest otherwise. The problem is assuming you can do any better by creating a lender of last resort that creates a bad incentive for lending institutions in their dealings knowing full well they will be bailed out with new money while the low and middle classes get screwed in the ensuing inflation.

Central control just ensures greater fluctuations in the boom - bust cycles. Or, through money-printing, you can kick the can down the road and ensure catastrophic financial collapse.

Jewish capitalism (any form of capitalism that promotes """free markets""" above state regulation) is degenerate. Deal with it.

One of the main things not discussed in these threads is the intangibles of the two societies proposed.

With capitalism, you have the FREEDOM to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and change your life. With out this awesome concept, I would've remained a loser cursed by my shit HS GPA. Instead I busted-ass and transferred to one of the most selective colleges at my state's flagship uni, and I now have a chance to be a very successful person.

Thank God for the freedom capitalism provides, without it, I probably would've offed myself.

> Humans are inherently fallible
> Market balances itself out and sheds malinvestment, transfers assets between generations
> Quick! Let's distort the market!

Genius.

The problem is that the National Socialists in this thread are no different than the progressives that think that it's just a matter of getting the right people into office to bring about their ideal nation without realizing they are sabotaging themselves in the attempt as special interests will inevitably co-opt that government power for their own ends.

This. The road to serfdom, every time.

Neo-Liberal is an actual term
It's not meant to be a some stupid fag's (you) buzzword.Milton Friedman is just a Liberal. It's just that the Democratic party so
authoritarian, he's considered to be a conservative thinker.
Really makes you think, hmmm? If your neurons aren't fired up
yet, buckle up, because Friedman critisized Bill and his pro globalist
policies.

I enjoy the free market praise the An-Caps harp on about, but the free market is not infallible or always correct. If that were the case, we'd all be Chinese. He's a globalist kike with some good ideas about the economy, but government is inevitable. I agree it should be limited and not intervene, but never forget the free market is the wet dream of the Jew, they can swindle the goy for only 2 easy payments of $9.99.

Milton Friedman believed in a minarchist government. His son, David, is the An-Cap.

Also,
>s-someone please protect me from the Jew? I'm h-helpless on my own

Sorry, don't know everything about the kike or his family, don't obsess over them like you apparently do.

Ah, another Jew apologist. Remember what happened last time you got mouthy, Herschel? Remember the six gorillion? I heard Auntie Esther got Holocaust'd sixty times!
The Jew would run circles around the goy if there was no hand to stop them. The problem with the free market is that you assume nobody is a nigger. That the NAP would work perfectly.

> Implying the Khazarian's don't have every incentive to infect the state and gravitate towards it
> Implying justified coercion doesn't give them the biggest advantage throughout human history

Also of the course the market isn't always correct, but what is correct? The market just provides for the subjective values of society, an interpretation on whether the outcomes in certain situations are "good/bad" is meaninglessly subjective as the inputs and vary just as much.

That's the beauty of it, it caters to our values, culture and environment. Why do you think Molymeme goes on about peaceful parenting? He believes that raising kids differently will allow them to follow incentives to different results.

The difference between me and you is you think European culture and its people can't withstand Jewish influence without having government in their corner. I think they can.

>Also of the course the market isn't always correct, but what is correct?
So because perfection does not exist, we should not strive for it?

>The market just provides for the subjective values of society, an interpretation on whether the outcomes in certain situations are "good/bad" is meaninglessly subjective as the inputs and vary just as much.
No, I'm pretty sure living in Schlomo's beautiful Matrix-like society would be wonderful, where borders don't exist, everyone speaks Spanish/Chinese, and the NAP works excellently because niggers vanish overnight. Selling coke to kids because the cops are privatized now seems like that would be a scenario that could be perceived as positive, just depends on the person, I guess. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?

So giving the kike free reign to do whatever he wants with no regulation is perfectly fine? How do you counteract Schlomo and Son's monopoly of oxygen? You just replace the company with the government. You replace all law with anarchy.
Too much government is the same story. I saw gas them all for real this time and be done with it. You think you can stand up to P&G or whatever when they're the largest employer and can get away with anything because you'll be shit out of luck without them (who else will provide electricity, water, etc. hiked up 1000% because free market)?
We evolved away from anarchy, not towards it.

Friedman isn't an Austrian, he is actually a monetarist, though people often ignore that.

Recessions are quickly corrected by markets and prolonged by government intervention.

youtube.com/watch?v=EPuW3W15oPE

What is fractional reserve banking

>brainwash the goyim into believing that government (monopoly on violence) is necessary
>coopt the power of govt with $$$, because govt is just people and people are fallible
>powermonger and hoard wealth like a motherfucker while sheep like this schmuck baabaabaa incessantly in their favour

> So because perfection does not exist, we should not strive for it?

That's not what I'm saying, I'm just saying that both the input and outcome are subjective (but determined objectively), so argue about the outcomes all we want but the outcomes are merely reflection of values, culture, wants and needs.

If you value a different outcome than what is produced then that's fine too and you can work towards that.

> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?

No I don't think the outcomes of individualism are that bad because without all this; bs division, welfare state, state subsidy of shit behaviour then the incentives and social pressures would be totally different.

Without all that shit, you can have individualism and you can still foster community, responsibility, incentives, ostracism, social pressures and culture. It's merely a decentralized culture that leans towards peaceful interaction, mostly among like-minded people or at the very least interactions that are mutually beneficial even if you hate the pricks.

What I was saying earlier though is that people should be careful judging the outcome as what the system will ALWAYS produce, because as I said the outcomes are just a reflection of society.

As molymeme would say you can't push the shadow without pushing the statue, think of the market as the naturally occurring shadow and you just have to change the statue to get the outcome you want.

I don't like excessive bureaucracy as well, I think it is just as cancerous. I just don't think an absolutely free society would function very well. I don't like seeing faggots and pedophiles (what's the difference) shilling their behaviours into normalcy.
I want the free market with limited government. Morals supersede wealth every day of the week, mass immigration of spics just because it would improve situations for Ford or Apple isn't exactly an attractive future.

>That's not what I'm saying, I'm just saying that both the input and outcome are subjective (but determined objectively), so argue about the outcomes all we want but the outcomes are merely reflection of values, culture, wants and needs.

If you value a different outcome than what is produced then that's fine too and you can work towards that.
In what way is the outcome subjective, I still don't get it. Child hookers and heroin addicted youth (because Schlomo can make a quick buck getting them young) is a horrible society to live in, only the nihilist values this outcome because it is the quickest path to destruction.

>No I don't think the outcomes of individualism are that bad because without all this; bs division, welfare state, state subsidy of shit behaviour then the incentives and social pressures would be totally different.
I agree completely, individualism is excellent, but only financially. One nation under God comes before that, but in every other aspect, collectivization is cancer.
>As molymeme would say you can't push the shadow without pushing the statue, think of the market as the naturally occurring shadow and you just have to change the statue to get the outcome you want.
That's an interesting way to put it, but if you allow yourself to become slaves to the company over the government, not much will get done in regards to pushing things. Anarchy is never a good thing, it is the future of the nigger.

>we need to take manufacturing back from the chinks!
>lower the minimum wage? never! #fightforfifteen!
>...
>...
>fucking globalists!

kys

> In what way is the outcome subjective, I still don't get it.

Iphones get produced, some people view them as destroying culture, others view them as one of the greatest inventions ever made. One cares more about the effect socially and the other cares more about the utility.

When families were poor you had child labour, some people could view that as a good thing because it helps increase the wealth of society and the family and bring them out of poverty. Others view it as immoral because kids should be sheltered.

> I agree completely, individualism is excellent, but only financially. One nation under God comes before that, but in every other aspect, collectivization is cancer.

What I'd like to know is, what about other religions? Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam etc? Why a single or multiple strands of Christianity? Is religion really necessary or only the same effects necessary that perhaps philosophy or community or science could form in the right environment?

> allow yourself to become slaves to the company over the government

I don't see it as becoming a slave to companies, I see it as giving the individual the most power and control over their own lives, a big part of that is moving past the idea of justified coercion for subjective preferences. That mob rules, or monarch rules, or any type of forceful rule is somehow justified which is the core of people being enslaved.

Liberty vs Power, this eternal struggle over how painful it is to work for something vs to take that something from others, which is why capitalist trade for mutual benefit is so appealing to me, it allows people to help each other satisfy their self interest. The closest collectivism has come to that is charity, guilt, force, 10 commandments & that sort of thing.

absolute dogshit opinion.

who is your favored economic philosopher then?

>Iphones get produced, some people view them as destroying culture, others view them as one of the greatest inventions ever made. One cares more about the effect socially and the other cares more about the utility.
And what, exactly, does the utilitarian and the progressive say to the sexualization of children in the name of the free market? Only the Marxist applauds this, and we all know Marxists are not human beings.
>What I'd like to know is, what about other religions? Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam etc? Why a single or multiple strands of Christianity?
It's the religion associated with that part of the world's culture. It won out over the others. Simple as that. Christ is the Redeemer for the masses in the West.
Science is not denied in Christianity, nobody actually takes those who deny gravity seriously. The ancients were an old people, we apply the word of God to ourselves through a modern lens (this doesn't mean Sodomites, objectives still hold true, just means that the nature of the Universe ought to be appreciated). That's a discussion for the hourly atheism cucks/Christ cucks slide thread, though.

>the last point

That is precisely it. You may be a perfectly fine man that I'd be proud to call a neighbour, but the NAP and An-Cap assume all niggers vanish overnight. Absolute freedom is a codeword for degeneracy, mankind requires moral law to follow, otherwise the lowest common denominator is allowed freedom. Marxists would subvert the culture even more so than they do now. You will be subject to the underbelly of society all in the name of freedom.
I respect the free market without subversion, without kikes. Government for national defense and the other essentials, but eliminating it and handed power to the (((companies))) just enables false free will (Pepsi or Coke?). Not saying that isn't the case today, but that the two entities will simply swap names.

>Everyone should transition to the old German system where funding and credit was only focused on investment and production.
this.
>they are ultimately hurting themselves.
implying stupid mestizos, chinks and niggers can notice that. You're perpetuating minimal slave salaries.
>free market yes
>Free migration No

Holy shit Martin Armstrong reference on pol, maybe this place isn't completely devoid of true intellectuals.

> Marxists are not human beings.

Too true.

> sexualization of children in the name of the free market?

Not sure what you mean by the sexualization of children, you mean like kids mimicking singers? I'm personally against it and I don't see if flourishing in a stateless society. In Australia at least, there's still a huge cultural stigma about it, everyone's secretly disgusted, especially Asians and Wogs. You could imagine that a transition to a stateless society would be with Conservatives, Libertarians and the Alt-Right all pushing back against PC SJW culture.

> It won out over the others. Simple as that. Christ is the Redeemer for the masses in the West.

Sure I guess in 2016 it's the most relatable for people.

> Marxists would subvert the culture

Nah fuck that, you've seen Yuri Bezmenov's videos?

I honestly believe that all of this Marxist subversion has led to the government being their biggest tool, one of their great pillars; government, media, academia & finance.

9/10 of these issues come directly from this division the Marxists use those pillars to create. Destroy the family with the welfare state, replace community with bureaucrats, replace human interaction and compromise with government agencies, replace role models with celebrities, replace truth, education and news with propaganda etc etc.

I see this same issue with Nationalism where a good outcome is reached and then there's a push back, people that are disenfranchised are used to subvert the system. Well imo they can't subvert 7 billion individuals without these central pillars.

What would "niggers" do with an armed populace, no welfare state, no government for BLM to cry to and no government to subsidize their decay? Black did a lot better before the war on drugs for example. Thoughts?

I mean child hookers because it's freedom of enterprise without any regulation.

>Nah fuck that, you've seen Yuri Bezmenov's videos?
Yeah, primary redpill. I agree in part, the government is a massive catalyst to this degeneracy, but who is in the government that pushes these ideals, or encapsulates the culture to subvert the goy? Of course, it is the Jew (youtube.com/watch?v=DhI8YPmTAw8).
The welfare state would dissolve and be replaced, good point on that bit. The bureaucrats to community assumes the community is all-white.
I'm with you on all that, but I just don't make the connection that statelessness dissolves all of this (certainly the welfare state which is an excellent point, no doubt). The homosexuality which becomes legitimized, the morally bankrupt businessmen who pursue profit over the nation, the degradation of traditionalism in the name of mass immigration from far-off lands with different """cultures""" (youtube.com/watch?v=SJThAmAExtg).
I have heard the oscillation theory before (market will eventually balance out ideals, Overton window shifts back right, or (((right)))). However, when has the public opinion ever been traditional, in the last few decades? I believe if Shillary wins this election, the voters flooding in will mean that the right wing will never win again.

>Well imo they can't subvert 7 billion individuals without these central pillars.
The media will still exist, without censorship of explicit material for the children. No rules whatsoever. It's basically "screw you dad, let me do what I wish". I agree that the government is cancerous, but sometimes the truth is beyond what the parent says, listening to your parents when they say eating sweets before a meal spoils your appetite is correct, regardless of their coercion over your playtime activities.

>nigger point
Breed like crazy, become criminals even more so than they are now (no drug laws, no obscenity laws, no laws period). cont.

holy shit you are the king twink

Cont.

>What would "niggers" do with an armed populace, no welfare state, no government for BLM to cry to and no government to subsidize their decay? Black did a lot better before the war on drugs for example. Thoughts?
You are correct that there will be no Mommy Trudeau to run to, but this simply means that they are free to do as they wish. And if I know anything, that's that giving niggers freedom spells the destruction of a modern and advanced civilization. I really hope Schlomo sets up abortion clinics for them to abort their niglets. Black ghettos would skyrocket, neighbourhoods of niggers turn to provinces. Wiggers multiply.

My point was not that they would fail/prosper more so than our current situation, but that the niggers would be in stark contrast to the NAP society. Anarchy is a violent paradise for the nigger. No cops, mass looting turns to city-wide shootouts. Cops are basically private eyes for citizens, have to follow you around everywhere. It could work in an all-white nation, but there is something about total freedom that will subvert the people. I can do anything I want to do, like sell coke to kids. This is an immoral action, but I get paid.
It would slow things down degeneracy-wise (barring free enterprise excuses for morally bankrupt actions), but as Hoppe would say, there must be a physical removal first.

The only two wrong things in this day and age of internet :
- crony capitalism and disproportionate accumulation of wealt- destruction of the environment in a lasting way for short term game

>Martin Armstrong reference
>true intellectuals
lol