“The only ‘fair’ is laissez-faire, always and forever.” ― Dmitri Brooksfield
lunatics that cry at taxation but orgasm at rent and profiting off others’ work.
The former is only possible through institutional compulsion and coercion. The latter is through a voluntary contract that expresses the cooperation of both parties to work for each other, as they have a property interest in specific performance of the other.
Denying this process of voluntary exchange is, implicitly, denying the free will of the tenant and worker.
Mileiístas (in spanish).
Yes, I voted him, but to defend myself from the state. I don’t think that, in the long-term, he’s going to save our current crisis. In fact, I advocate for the complete abolishment of the state through agorism.
Taxation is robbery. I live in Argentina (+100% in taxes) and I have this problem too.
No amount of prolix explanation excuses even the act of stereotyping.
It depends on why and how you use stereotypes.
Prejudice only properly refers to judgments formed without consideration of the available information.
Prejudging is legitimate when we do not have all the relevant facts of an object or subject, having to resort to inductive reasoning in order to try to induce and predict its individual characteristics.
It’s all about trying to make new information about someone or something, so we can economize information.
The politically correct bien-pensants always fail to recognize that stereotyping is a form of inductive reasoning. If you see something repeatedly, but not necessarily without fail, you form an opinion, which is layered with a degree of truth. A subset of the human race, based on ethnicity, inclination, or geography, will spring to mind after reading each of the following words: financier, migrant worker, male flight attendant, NASCAR driver, sprinter.
I’m sure most of us immediately conjured similar images. Yes, it is unfair to impose a group characteristic onto an individual, but we did so nonetheless. To belabor the obvious, each of us is an individual, not a group. When the stereotype is proven fallacious for an individual, move on.
Some people care about the latest thing, regardless if it directly affects them or not.
Is there a more victemless crime than hording something limited
There is no victim because the scalpers would hold their private property, owned by legit means, that is, buying that limited good by voluntary exchange.
forcing the actual intended customer to buy mine for way more money so i can profit off their misfortune?
The scalpers are not forcing anybody to buy their property. In fact, they’re doing a societal good by helping those customers who value that good more.
To illustrate this, imagine that a famous singer is going to be in a recital with a capacity of 50.000 people and that the ticket’s price is $70. There are, too, 120.000 people willing to buy that ticket, being $70 the minimum price.
We’d need to understand that human beings are different and varied by nature. Except for a few innate needs, like hunger and temperature, each one of us has different ends, different ways of how to attain an end, and different order of priorities for various goals.
An object is valuable only because there is at least one human being who believes that this object can help satisfy their subjective ends.
Now, if different human beings can have a different priority to one end (going to the recital), the economic value of that object (the ticket) that attains that end depends on how much the individual wants to satisfy their end. Being informal, we could say that the highest your priority is, the more valuable the object is to you.
As we said before, there would be fans who value going to the recital more, so they would be willing to buy that ticket at a higher price. By consequence, the scalpers don’t create an artificial demand, because the fans would have a different order of priorities for that end, as value is subjective to each individual.
It’s true that the supplier is the one who sets the price, but the main factor of price determination is the evaluation of the consumer, as every one of them decides in his own context whether the price paid for a good betters their life and well-being.
Scalpers are hidden heroes at events. They take personal, financial, and legal risk in order to provide a critical service in the hopes of earning a profit from their labors. Many of the aspects of scalping that people decry are, in reality, a direct product of the prohibition placed on the service. The prohibition raises prices, reduces supply, and limits competition. In addition, in the absence of the prohibition of scalping, buyers would have legal recourse against unethical scalpers who sell counterfeit tickets.
But, all models and pandering aside, scalping is simple: Individual sellers have the ownership of a scarce economic good, and they willingly fork over ownership of the good to a willing buyer, at a price agreed upon by both (or all) parties to the transaction. As usual, state intervention in this case means that your property is not your property to do what you want with it.
Is there a more victimless crime than scalping? Of course not. It is capitalism at its purest level. An event is sold out, you need a ticket and the scalper provides you one at a mutually agreed upon price. You don’t need to be Louis Rukeyser to understand the remarkable efficiency of this market.
Depends of how they make a profit.
By voluntary exchange in a free-market setting? They’re serving consumer needs and, by consequence, doing a societal good.
By using government-grant privileges to smash the competence? Nope. They’re doing more harm than good.
Okay, so you admit you have no idea how economics work.
You’re not even trying to counter-argue my argument.
Conscription is slavery.
It doesn’t matter if everybody is drafted, it won’t change that fact. I think the problem is the existence of the so-called war, that is, mass murder. Who are the ones behind of all that coercion? The state.
Examples like the Free Republic of Liberland were victims of the still existing institutional coercion.
Agorism is the way to abolish the apparatus of compulsion and coercion, and it’s a long-haul goal.
If my taxes raise, that’s ok because I can choose to ditch my car
What about the ones who didn’t want their taxes to be raised? Taxation is involuntary servitude, and no end can justify robbery.
Conscription should be abolished.
You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies.
I’m a “follower” of the Austrian School of Economics, although the idea that monopolies are government-grant privileges was first originated by the economists of the classical school (and they were right).
Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even this should be regretted since it benefits the consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function.
The definition of a monopoly by the idea of “monopoly price” has no effective meaning in free-market setting, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change.
You cant have a free market without a government enforcing anti monopoly laws.
A free market is not free at all if the government is stepping in any voluntary exchange.
The existence of “anti-monopoly” laws has caused more harm than good by protecting particular competitors, not competition. In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free-market setting.
“A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas.”
But not about the humanity, dignity, and freedom of people.
Are you referring to the recognition of the problems involving those concepts or the solutions proposed to fix them?
We can have different approaches and views about a variety of problems, but the concepts would be the same.
It doesn’t mean we should always make an agreement about how to solve them, but the idea of treating others who don’t think like me as “monsters” just because they are different is populist and dishonest.
Hating ideas is not the same as hating people.
The problem is that they fall in a false dilemma.
Evaluating the world and the people around you with labels so generic as “left wing” or “right wing” is not useful at all. Another problem is being too politicized, as I think it can damage your relationships with others.
I’m really meant it. Saying an argumentum ad hominem is pretty childish for my taste.
In this case, the force applied by the landlord is legimitate because the tenant is not performing their contractual obligations over the property of the landlord.
There is no contract between the government and citizen that legitimize the violence of the state. Any theory of a “social contract” will be unilateral by nature. Actually, the state itself is a threat to the Non-Agression Principle.
The asymmetries of power between both parties does not mean the contract is not voluntary. In fact, any government intervention in the labor market will make this situation worse, as these encourage poverty and harm those workers who are the less productive in the market.
As long as private property is not violated by institutional coercion; as long as the system of prices is not manipulated by any government policy; as long as human action and his natural rights are respected: social cooperation through the division of labor will flourish, as voluntary exchange is the source of economic progress.
Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity, as property is the only way to resolve conflicts by the existence of scarce resources.
The market is a process, not an “equilibrium model”. It is not designed, but emerged from human action.
The difference is that having market concentration does not mean being a monopoly. In fact, a monopoly is a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting.
The state can not have direct consumer feedback; it can not act economically. Instead, it collects taxes and spends them arbitrarily following interest groups.
“In a market economy, the range of quality, quantity, and type of goods and services correspond to social needs. These goods are services that are valued by consumers, and hence, they will be provided if it is economically feasible to do so relative to other social priorities.”