Do you believe no one can live outside the authority of the government?
Do you believe in theft and redistribution of wealth to fund their programs?
Do you believe a small oligarchy of politicians can best regulate the economy?
Do you believe a monopoly of fiat currency must be maintained?
Do you believe in using violence and force against those who disagree with you?
If yes, I think you should reconsider your position about who "deserve oxygen" and who does not.
If the person renting a home stops paying, the landlord will use force to evict the person.
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.
You didn’t pay taxes? Here, lemme force you to stay in prison for a while, also here’s a fine on top of that.
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.
Not all contracts are voluntary and, more importantly, the workers are almost always the weaker party when it comes to negotiation.
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.
If you leave it to the market to “self-regulate”, you’ll just get feudalism 2.0, where companies become the new noble houses
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.
Really, any sufficiently big company will act just like a govt, full of unnecessary bureaucracy
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."
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.
Every person who think that their vote (in a representative democracy) matters, is a victim of the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion, that is, the state.
However, what makes the state different from other coercive entities, such as organized crime groups, is that it enjoys some form of popular legitimacy. In other words, in addition to enslaving its inhabitants physically, it needs to secure their mental servitude as well.
Economists of the classical school were right to define a monopoly as 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. Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even the attempt should be regretted since it is a great benefit to consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function. The term "monopoly price" has no effective meaning in real market settings, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change. 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.
Amazon is just another big company that benefits from corporatocracy.
I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I HATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Qué bueno, che
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.
The landlords are providing a service to those who can't afford houses, and the tenants, through economic calculation, determine that it's better to pay for a department rather that saving for a house.
In fact, deficit spending, printing fiat money and manipulating interest rates harm savings and relative prices.
"If there seems to be a shortage of supply to meet an evident demand, then look to government as the cause of the problem."