Mixed Economies Rule, Libertarian Capitalism and Communism Both Suck

[boost]

Hey, look, I can play too.

Balance is key. Balance is unobtainable. We will forever teeter to one side, over corrected, teeter to the other, rinse, repeat.

The only way to end this cycle is for advocates of the extremes to get enough traction, likely at the limits of a teeter (interestingly it doesn't much seem to matter which direction the teeter is, advocates of that extreme will just make purity arguments), and yank us out of balance.

We don't want to end the cycle. The cycle is our friend. Libertarian capitalists and communists alike are our enemy.

[wufwugy]

How about the idea that mixed economies are the standard because that's what people want, yet within these economies, the gains are caused by libertarian capitalism types of stuff and the losses are caused by communism types of stuff?

[spoonitnow]

Communism is a cancer on capitalism and freedom that creates "mixed economies" in the same way that stage 4 pancreatic cancer creates a "mixed person."

[boost]

Oh, yeah, I like that. I'm not saying I'm 100% on board with it, but I appreciate that you're willing to play with the idea.

If this is the case, wouldn't the libertarian view be that this is the ideal? Put a different way, the cost of a great level of libertarian freedom in the market may be the fact that it will always be a mixed economy due to the wants of the people.

[boost]

Communism is a cancer on capitalism and freedom that creates "mixed economies" in the same way that stage 4 pancreatic cancer creates a "mixed person."

polemics and unnecessary heuristics are great tools when there isn't time to expound. Pretty cool that this format gives us ample opportunity to dive into the details, eh?

[wufwugy]

Oh, yeah, I like that. I'm not saying I'm 100% on board with it, but I appreciate that you're willing to play with the idea.

If this is the case, wouldn't the libertarian view be that this is the ideal? Put a different way, the cost of a great level of libertarian freedom in the market may be the fact that it will always be a mixed economy due to the wants of the people.

I'd say it represents the zeitgeist's/people's ideal of an economy rather than an ideal economy for the people.

[spoonitnow]

polemics and unnecessary heuristics are great tools when there isn't time to expound. Pretty cool that this format gives us ample opportunity to dive into the details, eh?

Sorry I don't use Nazi terms to try to win arguments on the Internet about taking away the freedom of people to not be stolen from at government gunpoint.

[boost]

That is an unintelligible mess of words. Your RP posts in the other thread a very well written and were honestly thought provoking. What gives?

[boost]

I'd say it represents the zeitgeist's/people's ideal of an economy rather than an ideal economy for the people.

Ideals will always be at odds with the zeitgeist. It is necessarily so, as the zeitgeist is an amalgamation of divergent opinions. This is the inherent problem with purity; it's an unobtainable illusion.

[wufwugy]

Sorry I don't use Nazi terms to try to win arguments on the Internet about taking away the freedom of people to not be stolen from at government gunpoint.

Buh Muh Social Contract.

[wufwugy]

Ideals will always be at odds with the zeitgeist. It is necessarily so, as the zeitgeist is an amalgamation of divergent opinions. This is the inherent problem with purity; it's an unobtainable illusion.

I guess that's true. I tried to briefly describe this with a poorly chosen word: there is an ideal of an economy that emerges from an aggregation of beliefs of people in a democratic society. And I think this ideal is not the same as the ideal economy for those same people.

[spoonitnow]

That is an unintelligible mess of words. Your RP posts in the other thread a very well written and were honestly thought provoking. What gives?

Whoops, wrong account.

(Note: I wasn't going to carry one more than another post or so without the punchline.)

[spoonitnow]

We don't want to end the cycle. The cycle is our friend. Libertarian capitalists and communists alike are our enemy.

In all seriousness, communism is a different creature and is much more dangerous, as is evidenced by the nine-figure death tolls in just the past several decades directly attributed to it.

[wufwugy]

I'd like to know the explanation regarding the idea that libertarian capitalism is bad.

[Savy]

Centrism for the sake of centrism is probably the most annoying and poorly backed up argument that people hold that isn't shot down straight away because it's fairly unoffensive.

[wufwugy]

Centrism for the sake of centrism is probably the most annoying and poorly backed up argument that people hold that isn't shot down straight away because it's fairly unoffensive.

Totally agree. It's lazy thinking. Though I'm not sure that's boost's game here.

Neat to note, you know how it's common to say moderation is good? I've seen Taleb convincingly explain why it isn't moderation that is good but variation.

[boost]

In all seriousness, communism is a different creature and is much more dangerous, as is evidenced by the nine-figure death tolls in just the past several decades directly attributed to it.

I agree that one is more dangerous, I'm just not sure which one. One has a track record, the other doesn't. I'm not eager to give it one.

I'd like to know the explanation regarding the idea that libertarian capitalism is bad.

To put it simply, in the same way communism was, it's a pipe dream.

It's a pipe dream that will never be realized, because it cannot be realized-- but if society is pushed far enough in that direction, it will be easy for those who benefit the most to pay lip service to the values espoused by the ideology and nudge out any challenge to the new status quo by labeling detractors as enemies out to stop the march towards the (unreachable) finish line.

As a bearing I think the ideal of libertarian capitalism has great merit, as a destination not so much.

Centrism for the sake of centrism is probably the most annoying and poorly backed up argument that people hold that isn't shot down straight away because it's fairly unoffensive.

Agreed. I suppose if you just felt this was a fitting place to plant that flag, then "agreed" is an adequate response. If you think this is my position, it's not, but I appreciate how I could be misread in that way.

[wufwugy]

I agree that one is more dangerous, I'm just not sure which one. One has a track record, the other doesn't. I'm not eager to give it one.



To put it simply, in the same way communism was, it's a pipe dream.

It's a pipe dream that will never be realized, because it cannot be realized-- but if society is pushed far enough in that direction, it will be easy for those who benefit the most to pay lip service to the values espoused by the ideology and nudge out any challenge to the new status quo by labeling detractors as enemies out to stop the march towards the (unreachable) finish line.

As a bearing I think the ideal of libertarian capitalism has great merit, as a destination not so much.

What makes it a pipe dream?

Communism is characterized by honest and diligent administration of its tenets, and that resulted in mass suffering. Wherever we implement the tenets of libertarian capitalism, results are pretty great.

[Savy]

Agreed. I suppose if you just felt this was a fitting place to plant that flag, then "agreed" is an adequate response. If you think this is my position, it's not, but I appreciate how I could be misread in that way.

I don't think it's position but it's relevant for the thread somewhat.

[boost]

Totally agree. It's lazy thinking. Though I'm not sure that's boost's game here.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt; it's not.

Neat to note, you know how it's common to say moderation is good? I've seen Taleb convincingly explain why it isn't moderation that is good but variation.

This sounds interesting, got a link or maybe better just your recollection of what he had to say?

[boost]

What makes it a pipe dream?

Communism is characterized by honest and diligent administration of its tenets, and that resulted in mass suffering. Wherever we implement the tenets of libertarian capitalism, results are pretty great.

I think "wherever" is hyperbolic here. I also take issue with the idea that we've ever seen the honest and diligent administration of communist ideology. Before you attempt to provide examples or seek a "close enough" argument, let me save you the trouble: it hasn't happened because it's not possible.

I don't deny that there is asymmetry here, but I think what communism and libertarian capitalism have in common is their goal of purity. I think this is an unattainable goal, and in falling short we will fall into a pit of misery.

[wufwugy]

This sounds interesting, got a link or maybe better just your recollection of what he had to say?

Sadly, I don't have a link. He linked either his work or some others' work on Twitter and I can't find it again. It was in large part a statistics argument, but I can't say what or how much.

The idea can be analogized like this: take food for example. Moderation is, well, something like balance healthy and unhealthy food. So, you can say balance between high calorie and low calorie, or cheeseburgers and bananas, or eating too much and eating too little. The moderation of each of these would be to do a middle thing, like eat a moderated amount of cheeseburgers and bananas.

But as we can see, this leaves some important stuff out. A truly "healthy" diet is one with a wide variation of food, not just bananas and not just consumed moderately. And if we examine tastes, that "variety is the spice of life" saying becomes interesting, since if you eat a lot of healthy vegetable stew (for example), the more you do it and the less you do other things, the more you may benefit health-wise from eating something healthy that is not vegetable stew. Likewise, the more you may benefit from eating something not healthy in the first place, which could manifest in either a moderate or extreme way. This idea can be extended to lifestyle. What makes for a healthy person? Is it somebody who is moderate in everything? No. Is it somebody who is moderate in everything even moderation? No. That would be a person who does a moderate amount of the same stuff most of the time then an extreme amount of that same stuff some of the time. The healthiest lifestyle is one with variation in the lifestyle.

His reasoning was significantly more sophisticated than this. It's too bad I can't find it again.

[wufwugy]

I think "wherever" is hyperbolic here. I also take issue with the idea that we've ever seen the honest and diligent administration of communist ideology. Before you attempt to provide examples or seek a "close enough" argument, let me save you the trouble: it hasn't happened because it's not possible.

I don't deny that there is asymmetry here, but I think what communism and libertarian capitalism have in common is their goal of purity. I think this is an unattainable goal, and in falling short we will fall into a pit of misery.

The endpoint might be a pipe dream since the endpoint is kinda literally an abstract dream. The policies to attempt to get there, though, communists implemented them quite faithfully and diligently.

[boost]

The endpoint might be a pipe dream since the endpoint is kinda literally an abstract dream. The policies to attempt to get there, though, communists implemented them quite faithfully and diligently.

Fair, but it doesn't really change my argument. You can never attain purity, and the unfettered pursuit of it will only lead to misery.

Sure things can get better, but better is not off port or off starboard, it's ahead. We'll meander our way forward, but that's fine.

[spoonitnow]

I'd like to know the explanation regarding the idea that libertarian capitalism is bad.

There's not one.

Communism is characterized by honest and diligent administration of its tenets, and that resulted in mass suffering. Wherever we implement the tenets of libertarian capitalism, results are pretty great.

Yep.

[boost]

I don't think it's position but it's relevant for the thread somewhat.

No, yeah, I think it's super relevant and I'm glad you brought it up.

While I don't think centrism for its own sake is an admirable position, I do wonder if it's unrealistic to expect the base of any movement to fully embody the virtues of it's leaders. Obviously this sounds terribly elitist, and honestly, I suppose it is. But if this is the case, this would mean that I would have to admire centrists for centrism's sake because they potentially are all that's keeping things on the rails.

But then, maybe they are the worst. Maybe they are the reason things are so rough. Maybe my position truly is elitist, in the sense that for my assertion that balance is the ideal to be true, it may require not a centrist base but a set of ever-embattled opposing bases. All of them convinced their ideal is the goal, all the while collectively but unintentionally steering us in the right direction.

[OngBonga]

Sorry I don't use Nazi terms to try to win arguments on the Internet about taking away the freedom of people to not be stolen from at government gunpoint.

But capitalist ogvernments claim tax off the workers. They're stealing from you anyway, under threat of prosecution, so essentially at gunpoint.

[spoonitnow]

But capitalist ogvernments claim tax off the workers. They're stealing from you anyway, under threat of prosecution, so essentially at gunpoint.

Taking taxes has nothing to do with capitalism and is in the opposite spirit of capitalism since it's not an exchange between two consenting parties.

[OngBonga]

So you're saying capitalism is a myth?

[wufwugy]

So you're saying capitalism is a myth?

Paging Cathy Newman.

[boost]

Paging Cathy Newman.

I chuckled, but this isn't fair. Ong seems to be legitimately trying to clarify what spoon is getting at, not playing "gotcha." Also, Cathy Newman would have said, "So you're saying capitalism is a myth and you binge watch beastiality every Tuesday at half passed eight?"

[spoonitnow]

So you're saying capitalism is a myth?

From Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system and ideology based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

The bold are the relevant parts that fly directly in the face of taxation without consent.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The bold are the relevant parts that fly directly in the face of taxation without consent.

Stop making yourself a victim.

You give consent by choosing where to live.

Not everyone has the maturity and mobility that you do, spoon. You certainly have plenty to offer as a productive member of any society you would choose to join. I don't imagine you'd have any trouble immigrating to any other country if you wanted to.

[BananaStand]

Stop making yourself a victim.

Worst kind of liberal jujitsu

"you have enough money to pay taxes, so don't complain about it because the rest of us don't". Over 50% of US citizens pay $0 in federal income tax, so they are simply not sensitive to this form of victimization. Simultaneously they consider themselves victims of other injustices that they consider "worse". And their preferred solution, is to tax more, because it affects them the least.

Government spending taxpayer funds in ways that do not represent the will of the taxpayers happens all the time. It's bad, it's wrong, and there are victims. "Stop making yourself a victim" is an insane suggestion. He was victimized. That makes him a victim.

And by the way...so have you.

[BananaStand]

You give consent by choosing where to live.

Duly elected representatives charged with governing, through consent of the governed, decided as a matter of policy to appropriate taxpayer funds for the purposes of maintaining an important and sophisticated system of criminal justice. Crimes happen, evidence is collected, suspects are charged, trials happen, verdicts are handed down, sentences are applied. That's it.

If that process is perverted, then the governed are victims. If a government official embezzles some of that money, citizens are victims. If a government official uses the power of his office to charge a political rival of wrongdoing, without any evidence, and smears that rival by initiating an investigation under false pretenses, resulting in a $5M cost to taxpayers....then the citizens are victims.

If you're saying the fact that nobody moved means that those perversions were consented to, then you have far surpassed the fringes of logic.

North Korea must be a great representative democracy because nobody ever leaves!!!

[OngBonga]

The bold are the relevant parts that fly directly in the face of taxation without consent.

I'm not really disputing this, I'm simply questioning if capitalism exists since most governments, including the UK and USA, collect tax.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@bananastand:
Way to ignore my argument was directed as spoon specifically and not at a general population of people aiming for the lowest common denominator.

Spoon is intelligent, hard working and an entrepreneur. I assume he has at least 4 figures in his financial portfolio at any given time. Those are generally qualities that get you moved forward in any immigration line.

I'm not saying that everyone has the mobility that spoon has. I'm saying spoon has his pick of the litter when it comes to choosing which of the worlds' governments he wants to call his own.
Yes, of course he's free to criticize his choice, but grain of salt with the whole victim talk.

Other people may be legitimately victimized by their circumstances, but spoon is not.

[BananaStand]

I'm not saying that everyone has the mobility that spoon has. I'm saying spoon has his pick of the litter when it comes to choosing which of the worlds' governments he wants to call his own.
Yes, of course he's free to criticize his choice, but grain of salt with the whole victim talk.

If he's complaining about his taxes being used to build roads and schools, then the victim talk is inappropriate. However, I doubt that's what he was talking about. I'm sure he supports the funding of roads and schools. He may have a better plan in mind for a privatized system, and he's welcome to exercise his voting rights to do whatever he can to shape policy in that direction. However, I doubt very much he would support a withholding of tax dollars as a means to force that change in policy immediately. If he is, then he is clearly not as intelligent and mature as you are giving him credit for.

The "victim talk" is totally appropriate in the context of a government engaged in fraud, waste, abuse, and deception in it's spending of taxpayer dollars. Perverting the justice department for politically motivated witch hunts is one example. Once upon a time taxpayers agreed to government funded safety nets for starving people. Now the SNAP program spends triple digit millions of dollars a year on Pepsi. Fraud, waste, and abuse happens ALL THE TIME. Wake up!

How about when taxpayers said "yeah, we'd like to expand healthcare, but we're not paying taxes for it". Lawmakers took that message and crafted the Obamacare bill and explained to us all that "it's not a tax". Then when it's constitutionality was challenged, Lawmakers defended it by citing its right to levy taxes.

So when the taxpayer says "Hey...wtf???", you think the appropriate answer is to tell that taxpayer "you're not a victim and if you don't like it, move!!"

Really????

[wufwugy]

You give consent by choosing where to live.

Do you believe this logic applies to other things? Like, do people consent to being murdered by choosing to live where murders happen? Do women consent to having a baby by choosing to have sex?

[spoonitnow]

Stop making yourself a victim.

You give consent by choosing where to live.

Not everyone has the maturity and mobility that you do, spoon. You certainly have plenty to offer as a productive member of any society you would choose to join. I don't imagine you'd have any trouble immigrating to any other country if you wanted to.

This is like saying a woman gave consent to be raped by choosing to go to a man's apartment. It's simply not true.

[spoonitnow]

@bananastand:
Way to ignore my argument was directed as spoon specifically and not at a general population of people aiming for the lowest common denominator.

Spoon is intelligent, hard working and an entrepreneur. I assume he has at least 4 figures in his financial portfolio at any given time. Those are generally qualities that get you moved forward in any immigration line.

I'm not saying that everyone has the mobility that spoon has. I'm saying spoon has his pick of the litter when it comes to choosing which of the worlds' governments he wants to call his own.
Yes, of course he's free to criticize his choice, but grain of salt with the whole victim talk.

Other people may be legitimately victimized by their circumstances, but spoon is not.

Well she has two legs and a car, so she could have easily just walked out and drove somewhere else instead of being raped.

I'm sure you may not realize how ridiculously absurd and dehumanizing you're being, and I don't hold it against you, but you are.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@bananastand: I didn't say anything you're arguing against.

"Taxation without consent" is not "I disagree with how my tax dollars are spent," it's, "I wuz robbed by the guvment!"

@wuf: Yes. This applies to other things.
Murder: No, unless you mean Earth, in which case, yeah. I'd rather live on Earth with other humans, some of whom murder, than live anywhere else in the universe, which would murder me in less than 5 minutes. Also, I am not in a financially viable state to seriously entertain living anywhere but Earth, so that's not going to count as a choice I'm making, so much as a circumstance I find myself in.

Sex: No, they consent to maybe getting pregnant, though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is like saying a woman gave consent to be raped by choosing to go to a man's apartment. It's simply not true.

lol. nope. try again.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well she has two legs and a car, so she could have easily just walked out and drove somewhere else instead of being raped.

I'm sure you may not realize how ridiculously absurd and dehumanizing you're being, and I don't hold it against you, but you are.

You're the only one making these statements.

[spoonitnow]

I'm going to chalk this up to a difference in social aptitude and move along.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well she has two legs and a car, so she could have easily just walked out and drove somewhere else instead of being raped.

I'm sure you may not realize how ridiculously absurd and dehumanizing you're being, and I don't hold it against you, but you are.

You KNOW the government taxes its citizens. There is no obfuscation there, no misdirection, no liar cajoling you to move to America, promising you wont pay any taxes.

Your example only works if the woman knew that the man was intending to rape her all along and had other viable choices, and still chose to go get raped.

[spoonitnow]

You KNOW the government taxes its citizens. There is no obfuscation there, no misdirection, no liar cajoling you to move to America, promising you wont pay any taxes.

Your example only works if the woman knew that the man was intending to rape her all along and had other viable choices, and still chose to go get raped.

Your last sentence here is the exact justification that tons of rapists use, and it's a demonstration of the fundamental premise of victim blaming, so I'm not going to continue this particular discussion with you because it's disgusting.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your last sentence here is the exact justification that tons of rapists use, and it's a demonstration of the fundamental premise of victim blaming, so I'm not going to continue this particular discussion with you because it's disgusting.

So you're abandoning your original premise because it is unjustifiable victim blaming to compare taxation and rape, then?

[wufwugy]

We know the government taxes to a probability. There is probability for everything else, like being raped by going to a particular apartment. What probability of Thing A does it take from being in Position A that means choosing Position A means consenting to Thing A?

[spoonitnow]

So you're abandoning your original premise because it is unjustifiable victim blaming to compare taxation and rape, then?

Your analogy would assume the woman was born in the apartment.

I'm not speaking to you on this again until you get your head out of your ass on what consent means.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your analogy would assume the woman was born in the apartment.

This analogy is all you, spoon.

I'm not speaking to you on this again until [...]

[boost]

Taxation without consent is a cute phrase, but it's redundant. To levy a tax is to make an implicit or explicit threat should the demand not be fulfilled. Should the option to opt out of benefits create a scenario in which the benefit to the group is wiped out or unduly diminished, the option should not be available or should be penalized as necessary. This is what it means to be social creatures. You didn't get a choice where you were born? Too bad, life isn't fair.

The primacy of the individual is an interesting concept, but ultimately it is unworkable. We are social beings. The primacy of the group is the appropriate axiom here.

[wufwugy]

The primacy of the individual is an interesting concept, but ultimately it is unworkable. We are social beings. The primacy of the group is the appropriate axiom here.

The observation by the first renowned philosopher of economics (Adam Smith) that essentially spawned the field was how it is interaction between individual preferences that create group success.

[boost]

The observation by the first renowned philosopher of economics (Adam Smith) that essentially spawned the field was how it is interaction between individual preferences that create group success.

I'm trying to find the point here.

[spoonitnow]

The primacy of the individual is an interesting concept, but ultimately it is unworkable. We are social beings. The primacy of the group is the appropriate axiom here.

This is the [incorrect] line of thinking that leads to communism, true fascism and shit like the Holocaust.

The primacy of the individual is the only thing that allows a group to flourish. Without that, you cannot have a functional society, which has been proven repeatedly throughout history.

[boost]

This is the [incorrect] line of thinking that leads to communism, true fascism and shit like the Holocaust.

The primacy of the individual is the only thing that allows a group to flourish. Without that, you cannot have a functional society, which has been proven repeatedly throughout history.

For essentially none of history was the primacy of the individual held to be true. Limited individual rights serve the interests of the group.

At times these rights have been fought for, tooth and nail, using primacy of the individual arguments. I'm glad these fights were fought and that we get to enjoy the individual rights they were fought over, but the success of limited rights is not evidence in support of the primacy of the individual.

[spoonitnow]

For essentially none of history was the primacy of the individual held to be true. Limited individual rights serve the interests of the group.

At times these rights have been fought for, tooth and nail, using primacy of the individual arguments. I'm glad these fights were fought and that we get to enjoy the individual rights they were fought over, but the success of limited rights is not evidence in support of the primacy of the individual.

Men are born with rights. To the degree to which those rights are limited, men live in tyranny, and right now, you're defending tyranny.

[wufwugy]

I'm trying to find the point here.

The group is better off when the individual takes primacy. This is for a lot of reasons, but a starting point for explaining why is that everybody is an individual, so everybody "takes primacy", and they compete, which makes the cream rise to the top and improve everything for everybody.

[wufwugy]

For essentially none of history was the primacy of the individual held to be true. Limited individual rights serve the interests of the group.

If we're using history, there is very strong evidence that it's the limiting of individual rights that subdued the group, and the adoption of individual rights that empowered the group.

[wufwugy]

Men are born with rights. To the degree to which those rights are limited, men live in tyranny, and right now, you're defending tyranny.

One of the best things I ever learned in college was something I wasn't exactly "supposed" to learn, but I did nonetheless because I pay attention to the concepts and data of what is taught.

That thing is that the American Constitution innovation -- which was new to the world at the time -- was prohibition of government power over the individual in a handful of areas. Quite seriously before the US Constitution, every country had unlimited government rights. America was the first to limit government power by law.

And as we have seen from economic history since then, adoption of limited government institutions leads to explosion of prosperity.

[wufwugy]

people love themselves freedom of speech. they think government grants it and that's why we have it. no, freedom of speech is a prohibition of government to intervene in speech, not something the state gives like a parent gives a child an allowance.

this is one of the essential confusions that people hold about politics and societies. they think that rights and freedoms derive from some sort of entitlement and authority. no, they derive from limiting the power the state has over the individual.

[spoonitnow]

[wufwugy]

Since it was hot topic here a couple weeks ago, y'all like this. Very good and short post by David Henderson on impacts of automation in trucking and other industries.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...driverles.html

[spoonitnow]

Since it was hot topic here a couple weeks ago, y'all like this. Very good and short post by David Henderson on impacts of automation in trucking and other industries.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...driverles.html

COLONIZED

[wufwugy]

i lold. totally forgot about that


we covered some serious ground on discord. like how spoon wishes he knew how to make pretty borders and savy wishes he got slagged off more.

[spoonitnow]

i lold. totally forgot about that


we covered some serious ground on discord. like how spoon wishes he knew how to make pretty borders and savy wishes he got slagged off more.

And Savy being mad I wouldn't post pictures of my girl's asshole.

[forkitnow]

people love themselves freedom of speech. they think government grants it and that's why we have it. no, freedom of speech is a prohibition of government to intervene in speech, not something the state gives like a parent gives a child an allowance.

this is one of the essential confusions that people hold about politics and societies. they think that rights and freedoms derive from some sort of entitlement and authority. no, they derive from limiting the power the state has over the individual.

Freedom of speech is a meme perpetuated by heterosexual cisgender white men in order to silence the speech of the oppressed.

[wufwugy]

Freedom of speech is a meme perpetuated by heterosexual cisgender white men in order to silence the speech of the oppressed.

REVERSE COLONIZED

[forkitnow]

REVERSE COLONIZED

You think your economics degree means something, but it doesn't. Economics as a field is the systematic indoctrination of oppression under the guise of what is "earned" by privilege through involuntary transactions termed as "voluntary" through capitalism in the typical doublespeak that is typical of fields completely created by and maintained by the white male cisgender heteronormative oppressor for the express purpose of preserving power that was originally cultivated on the backs of black slaves working stolen lands.

[wufwugy]

You think your economics degree means something, but it doesn't. Economics as a field is the systematic indoctrination of oppression under the guise of what is "earned" by privilege through involuntary transactions termed as "voluntary" through capitalism in the typical doublespeak that is typical of fields completely created by and maintained by the white male cisgender heteronormative oppressor for the express purpose of preserving power that was originally cultivated on the backs of black slaves working stolen lands.

Rich white men invented English.

[forkitnow]

Rich white men invented English.

Which is why we have no gender-neutral, singular pronoun that is not objectifying. The oppressor naturally wouldn't think of that.

[wufwugy]