/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>141349
>Where there is demand, Capitalism supplies it.
I'll play devils advocate and say that it doesn't take externalities into account. What is your answer to this?

>>141352
>externalities
Any particular examples?

>>141356
In case of pollution you privatize everything and create consumer unions. If you pollute someone's property it is in their interest to go after you for damages. If you do something highly unethical it is up to consumers to boycott.

>>141367
Well that argument assumes a perfectly competitive economy, but I'll grant you that for now since that ideally is how capitalism should run. Still the argument doens't apply to positive externalizes.

externalities*

>>141370
>doens't apply to positive externalizes
Then is that a problem?

>>141375
>Then is that a problem?
Yep it is, because it means the market is undervaluing a good that overall we all we be better off if more of it was produced.

>>141378
The market would eventually just monetize the externality, or stop the externality to reduce resource loss. Otherwise, it would be recognized has having value and would be monetized via PR.

>>141349
Is your premise then that jews are not a problem?

>>141410
Capitalism can function without Jews, so no.

>>141415
By your answer, you seem to suggest either A. that jews are not a problem, or B. that jews are a problem that capitalism has not (or cannot) solve, which defies your OP statements, namely
>Where there is a problem the Capitalism fixes it
Care to clarify?

>>141418
My response was that it was not a premise the Jews were not a problem. They were excluded from the equation. Adding them in, there are probably ways to deal with the problem. One such way is to support white owned business over Jewish business.

>>141418
>Care to clarify?
Need sleep. Will do later.

>>141349
How will you prevent major capitalists from buying political influence?

>>141471
Major capitalists can't buy political influence if there is no political influence to buy.

>>141535
You can buy a man. How does that man get political influence?

>>141552
If you go full ancap or even libertarian political influence does not matter. The state would have next to no power, or would outright not exist. Buying something with no value is pointless.

>>141349
Capitalism is for kikes and soyboys.

>>141561
Who do you think it was that built the industries you want to socialize? It certainly wasn't the state.

>>141563
It was the capitalist kikes that built it.

>>141565
>capitalist kikes
Not every capitalist was a kike.

>>141566
>implying
I will say Henry Ford was a good capitalist.

>>141567
Henry Ford was one of the best. For all the tripe people spout about "le ebul corporate leaders"–a position reinforced by popular (((media))) the fact remains that for every amoral CEO there is one waiting in the wings genuinely desiring to do the right thing. The problem is that corporate welfare implicitly benefits only the disloyal and corrupt, leading to the situation that we have today.

>>141580
Fully agreed. Also another good one was Andrew Carnegie. Not the best with workers rights, but some of the philanthropies he set up survive to this day. Also check out his "Gospel of Wealth". It's actually a good take on capitalism, and what needs to be done to preserve the good in it.

>>141349
>Where there is demand, Capitalism supplies it.
Except when it's unprofitable, like when the poor or misfortune need something. While supply and demand is a cornerstone of Keynesian economics, this isn't mutual to Capitalism, either, as fascism in a free market way also uses this.
>Where there is a problem the Capitalism fixes it.
Except it doesn't, because every single form of capitalism that doesn't require regulationism has eventually spiraled into monopolies and mass poverty, where corporations reign supreme by fucking everyone else up the ass. The only way to succeed in such a system is kikery. This is terrible for the nation.
>Where something can be done better, Capitalism innovates.
Except when it doesn't, because they've got a stranglehold on the market and there's no incentive to innovate? Prime example is the car industry. I'll give you this one over the communists cause one of the things they get completely wrong is there's little to no incentive in communism, but pure capitalism is no better or worse than say, market socialism, when it comes to innovation, which leads a massive gap that isn't a complete command economy that also does this, meaning it doesn't matter how authoritarian or libertarian the system is, as long as the people are free to compete there will naturally be innovation. Plus, that's not even counting the times innovation was also secured by the state, i.e a need for weapons in wartime, which have pioneered some of the greatest innovations out there. (Rocketry, the Internet, etc)
>Capitalism has fought poverty, and has allowed the modern day poor to live like 10th century kings.
Capitalism without regulation also creates poverty, and just widens the wealth gap. Even with regulation, the trend we're seeing right now in america is a massively widening wealth gap. Your middle class is dying out, and an increasing number of those "10th century kings" are more becoming "18th century peasants with internet" than the other way around. While capitalism brought us out of feudalism, it is not the end all to ideological perspectives as shown in the 19th century ideological struggles, where robber barons ran amock and monopolies abused sweatshops. Also, for the vast majority of peasants outside of your country, this has been shit. They work in sweatshops for 12 hours a day for pennies on end so that you can live like a tenth century king, and were this not the case, everything in america would cost 3x as much.
>It is humanity in a state of nature.
>Kikery is a state of nature.
Alright, John Locke, but these ideas have been debunked when the philosophical nature behind them were. People can naturally be good-natured, Europe specifically has thrived by working together. Capitalism thrives by fucking others up the ass, and you get to the top by fucking the hardest with the best McDildo you can produce. This kind of thinking makes way too many unproven assumptions about the nature of humans to ever be true.
>Fascist Corporatism or Communist Worker's Dictate can never match the productivity of a truly free market.
Mate, Fascist corporatism IS capitalist. The reason why it's even corporatism is because the state then also acts as a corporation waving around power for it's own needs, such as in wartime when you need weapons and resources, but this doesn't mean there are no other competing corporations in fascist society. Secondly, not only has fascism repeatedly outproduced capitalism to the point where it took the entire world mobilized to destroy a state that brought itself up from the weakest country in Europe to the strongest in 6 years, and was able to keep up with the production of weapons of a competitor with 5x the already established industry and twice the population. And that's just America, we had the rest of the world going against us, too. Also, just for a 'fuck you', the USSR also industrialized way faster than America did. Command economy, while short on incentive, in a time of strife massively outproduces the will of the free market.
>It is unnatural,and will always fall short of desired demand.
Who are you to say what doctrine is unnatural, Mr. "I make Indian sweatshop workers produce my Nikes™ Amazeshooes™ for pennies while I buy them for 300$" capitalist? Naturalism is the stupidest argument ever because it makes gratuitous assumptions about not only philosophy, but also Economics. Not even Keynes or Hayek themselves had the gaule to call capitalism natural, because it isn't. Just like the rest of the doctrines they're all products of our own volition, and the philosophers that suggest otherwise have been debunked.
>Even reforms, such as minimum wage and progressive taxes only serve to hamper capitalism's march to prosperity.
If the march to prosperity is a road littered with the 80% poor and 3% elite, then yes, but excuse me for not wanting to live in squalor while some jew monopolist has kiked everyone into submission. We've been through 'pure capitalism'. It lead to Robber Barrons, monopolies like Banana corporations, and gratuitous violations of humanity. Without regulation, your capitalism is no better than the communism you fight against, because there's nothing from stopping that Corporation from doing whatever they please.
>Am I wrong?
Yes, you're so wrong, know nothing about Fascist Economics and based your entire argument off of shit from the nature of people from a centuries old philosopher who's ideas about Human nature were shit. Christ, you probably don't even know why Keynes won out against Hayek's pure unregulated capitalism. Try reading some economic theory before throwing your dick around in areas you don't know shit about.

A reminder Ancap's are a meme and will forever remain a meme, because they can't into Economics.

Corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, therefore they require regulation. This is where fascism becomes a useful tool. Its something that ancaps find hard to grasp. And I can even with "national socialism" if youre talking about economic socialism. BTW Hitlers idea of socialism was based on "common need before common interest" and wasnt about means of production, or someother commie/socialist free handout bullshit. Captialism in no doubt is the best economics.

>>141586
Will provide a full reply when I'm not anxiously waiting for an interview. Anyway…

>laissez faire causes mass poverty and wealth inequality.
Undoubtably you cite the 19th century with its various deprivations. However, simply looking at the time period and saying "people were poorer back then, and there was also less regulation, therefore less regulation = poverty" completely ignores the historical context of the period. It was a time when the West, undergoing booming population growth rates thanks to rapid advances in medicine, escaped the Malthusian Trap. Essentially, farm workers, now rendered superfluous thanks to greater numbers and advances in productivity, left their acres and travelled to cities to pursue industrial work. We all know that they subsisted in rather squalid conditions, but they were still better off than remaining on the farms, otherwise they would have done so. The 19th century was a time of rapid economic growth, but productivity and wealth was still tiny compared to the modern day with our technology. Workers received wages in accordance with what they produced, which wasn't very much, but eventually as factory outputs rose it became affordable to raise wages (which happened at least partly due to the demands of labor unions).

It's the same in other countries. Bemoan sweatshops all you like but no one forces you to buy things from them, it's why "fair trade" programs exist. Chinese, Indian, Lesotho workers, etc. are simply not as productive as Western ones (not to be confused with "working hard," but rather factoring in technical and informational skill) and wages correspond with this. Chinese wages are actually rising btw.

>Capitalism doesn't innovate
The car industry doesn't innovate? Say what? Compare a modern car with one of equivalent price 20 years ago (adjusted for inflation) and you'd be surprised at all the progress that has been made. The main problems with the car industry arise from regulation, such as the stupid EPA forcing every American manufacture to focus on "emissions" at the cost of everything else.

>John Locke
There's a lot more to capitalism than John Locke, and while he was an early proponent of small government he was hardly an ancap. Libertarianism (which includes anarcho-capitalism) has its roots in not only English common law but also Renaissance Spain, the Genoese city-state and the Holy Roman Empire. It was further developed with the efforts of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, and Lysander Spooner, but it wasn't until the 20th century that it was formalized in Austrian economics, which has extensive resources addressing every issue you bring up.

>Fascist corporatism is capitalism
As soon as the State favors one producer over another or bars some competitors from entry then it ceases to be free-market capitalism. Expecting the State to somehow make a better decision on this than the laws of supply and demand is what led to the economic woes of the West.

>Fascism outproduced capitalism
Not at all. The strength of the Third Reich was based on the natural industry and ingenuity of the German people and their fanatical devotion at that time to defending their nation against all threats. At no point was Germany able to outproduce the United States, which eventually supplied tanks and airplanes at a greater pace than the Germans could destroy them. The United States was a relative latecomer to the war and would not have entered at all if the anti-war faction won. Before WW2 it was having its own problems as federal meddling in the economy had exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression.

>USSR industrialized faster than America did
How many millions perished from this? For such a sacrifice, the USSR never achieved economic parity with the U.S. and continually suffered shortages of goods. Even in WW2 the Soviet Union relied on huge amounts of aid from the United States.

>why Keynes won out
Mainly because 1) Keynes was a charismatic Brit while Hayek was heavily accented and often confused his audience, 2) Keynes was a member of the Fabian society which had a large role in public policy and he was prominent at a time when "command economics" was hip, and most importantly 3) central governments will rarely if ever give up control but would much rather pursue economic methods that extend power.

Everything else you've said is an emotional argument and screams ignorance of the same sort that leftist socialists have.

>>141599
>people were poorer back then, and there was also less regulation, therefore less regulation = poverty
That's not what I said, or was getting at. What did happen, though, is that regulation brought an end to that system that persisted well into the 80's, far after your claimed 'factory output can accommodate wages' stick.
>Workers received wages in accordance with what they produced
No, they actually didn't. In accordence with Economics back then they were quite literally sweatshops, creating relatively expensive items for the middle class while receiving fuck all. The robber barons were exceedingly rich while the child labor in some UK spinning factories were paid next to nothing.
>Bemoan sweatshops all you like but no one forces you to buy things from them, it's why "fair trade" programs exist. Chinese, Indian, Lesotho workers, etc. are simply not as productive as Western ones (not to be confused with "working hard," but rather factoring in technical and informational skill) and wages correspond with this.
Nobody who can't afford it (over a third of the US population now) gives a fuck about sweatshops. Back then, when Economics poverty was rampant, they cared even less. Furthermore, in terms of productivity, sweatshops and chinese factories are about on par as american ones were, that's why they were outsourced because it's the same work for half the price.
>Chinese wages are actually rising btw.
And that's why China faces an Economics crisis, because all the cheap labor is moving to India, which I cited, instead of china. And actually, this is happening because the Chinese gov't is starting to mandate wage increases, not that the 'factories now produce enough for livable wages'.
>Capitalism doesn't innovate
I never said capitalism doesn't innovate. I said, if there's no incentive to do so, it won't. While the car industry is perhaps not the best example considering the strides they've made in the past 20 years particularly when it comes to the safety of vehicles, from around the 50's to the early 90's the improvements in cars were marginal at best. Furthermore Henry ford quite literally snuffed out 1920's electric cars before they ever got the chance to get off the ground, buying up whoever was making them. Granted, Electrical cars were pretty shit then, but considering he saw them as enough of a threat to snuff them out really says something about aggressive competition. Anyways, another example would be Banana Republic (corporations) that never innovated their farming tools (even though they existed) and stook to far cheaper methods in the name of profit. Essentially what I was getting at, is stagnant markets and monopolies don't innovate.
>There's a lot more to capitalism than John Locke, and while he was an early proponent of small government he was hardly an ancap.
This doesn't do anything to address my argument that the underlying philosophy that capitalism relies on people naturally being greedy and therefore we need a system that balances that out is flawed. Furthermore Libertarianism does not contain roots in Spain, the HRE or Genoese, none of which even had inclining philosophies that went to that direction.
>but it wasn't until the 20th century that it was formalized in Austrian economics
And Hayek, who was part of that, and who lost to Keynes for a reason! The only place where Austrian economics and it's derivative from the chicago school have ever had a proper hold on society is under a Autocratic Junta via Pinochet, who conducted his social policies in a fascistic way and while saving the economy from extreme socialism, didn't do terribly much to increase quality of life. And I've read the "extensive resources addressing every issue you bring up" they're shit, because they rely on a retarded philosophy about Humans.
>As soon as the State favors one producer over another or bars some competitors from entry then it ceases to be free-market capitalism.
You once again fail to understand Fascist economics. The state doesn't favor one producer, it acts as a Corporation with it's own interests. Having contract work done between two metal producers for a car company and "the better one wins" isn't evil corporatism, but as soon as a state does it for something like tanks it is? Once again you clearly don't know how fascist Economics work.
>Expecting the State to somehow make a better decision on this than the laws of supply and demand is what led to the economic woes of the West.
No, but in fascism the state has it's own need and it's like a company deciding what it needs best. If it needs metal for tanks, it'll find a supplier. If it needs construction work, it'll find a contractor. This doesn't bar or hinder competition from trying to do a better job, at all. For example the Reichswerke Hermann Göring didn't stop Thyssen AG from producing the exact same thing, just for the government it was more convenient due to their own personal demand for steel to have their own company producing steel for them. In fact, Thyssen AG even competed very heavily and even won out the Reichswerke in the eyes of Ferdinand Porsche, who had his own government contract to produce tanks.
While the situation in regulatory capitalism does lead to some issues, making a misinformed statement about fascist economics and then attributing that to a predominantly modern capitalist society is inherently fallacious because it's comparing apples to oranges. They're two completely different types of economic systems. Also, regulationism is why Europe's middle class isn't shrinking with their market socialism, and America's is, which kind of debunks your 'lead to the economic woes of the west' because the most regulatory governments are doing the best in the situation they're in, while the relatively 'hands off' 'murican government stumbles to try to pump life into failing coal plants.

>Fascism outproduced capitalism
Didn't say it did, it's why we lost the war after all. In Europe we certainly did, however, having more production than France, Britan, and the minor nations as well. Honestly GDP in this scenario is a bit misleading because Germany's mining and agriculture was a bit of a mess, while it's heavy industry by 1939 was one of the best in the world.
>At no point was Germany able to outproduce the United States
Depends on what you're talking about. America's war ecconomy didn't start ramping up until 1941, and in terms of military goods America was only outproducing Germany in 1943.
>Before WW2 it was having its own problems as federal meddling in the economy had exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression.
Mate, President Hoover tried the 'hand off policy' to the great depression and it did fucking nothing. The war brought you out, because now the Government had a cause to pump millions of dollars in funds into. While Rosevelt's new deal was a steaming pile of garbage at least it stopped the perpetual freefall the USA's economy was in. You need to learn some of your own History, federal meddling was not the cause of a prolonged depression. Oh, and by the way, the depression was STARTED by a lack of regulationism.
>How many millions perished from this? For such a sacrifice, the USSR never achieved economic parity with the U.S. and continually suffered shortages of goods.
A whole metric shitton. And you're right, in the latter years the soviet union suffered greatly from a lack of incentive. However, your argument does nothing to debase the fact that in times of strife, a command economy does better. This is why the Germans switched over to it in late 1943, because their already efficient economy wasn't enough to keep up with literally the entire world.
>Mainly because 1) Keynes was a charismatic Brit while Hayek was heavily accented and often confused his audience, 2) Keynes was a member of the Fabian society which had a large role in public policy and he was prominent at a time when "command economics" was hip, and most importantly 3) central governments will rarely if ever give up control but would much rather pursue economic methods that extend power.
>implying it had nothing to do with the economic theories and why people chose them
This is quite literally moving the goalposts away from actual economics, instead saying it's becaues of Hayek's character. Are you aware that both of their ideas spread through their books, nor their speech? Also command economics were never hip in democratic society, and democratic society also doesn't have central governments.

>Everything else you've said is an emotional argument and screams ignorance of the same sort that leftist socialists have.
Ad hominim isn't an argument. Rather ironic, considering the picture you used. And if you had actually bothered to read half of what I said properly, I did very little appealing to emotion. If saying that sweatshops and robber barons are bad is an appeal to emotion, then I'm afraid you're a sociopath.

I would like to point something out while you all rip each other apart over:
>"Muh National Socialism is better"
>"No, cause muh capitalism is better."
You really can't compare the two.
National Socialism is a Political and Economic System, while capitalism is just an economic system.

>>141661
This. Same goes for fascism. You can have a capitalist fascist society (pinochet) or a more left, socially oriented one with only a couple aspects of capitalism. (Hitler)

Before we proceed any further can someone give me a firm definition of "National Socialism," "Fascism," or "Socialism"? Because these a vague terms, and I don't understand in what way they would be different from the status quo

>>141666
I believe socialism is supposed to mean government controls the means of production, but most people would consider that communism nowadays. Fascism, as far as I understand it, is basically utilitarian authoritarian nationalism. I hope that helps, Satan. Also, here's a video of German libertarian economist Hans Hermann-Hoppe discussing the economic policies of the Third Reich.
https://youtu.be/LYEUHk16yk4

>>141381
This makes no sense in the case of a positive externality. The market cannot monetize them which is why it is an externality to begin with. Society values vaccines a lot, the market only values them off of the laws of supply and demand, and for those with a lower utility for health they won't value them very much while society will value everyone getting them a lot.

>>141666
In a word no

These words are thrown around as insults so often that their meaning is quite blurred. And it doesn't help that people will then unironically take on the new definition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TNtbailjWI

I would say (not my opinion or correct just how I find people tend to use them)
Fascist is 1. authoritarian traditionalism 2.white supremacy.
Socialism is 1. the workers or the people owning companies & business equally and pay distributed fairly 2. government social programs like welfare.
National Socialism 1. a euphemism for Nazi 2. capitalism with lots of government control, protectionist policies and nativist social policies 3. left wing pretending not to cuck


I think this is useful to understanding political positions. Set the sliders and see how the description changes.
http://filteries.com/politics

>>141666
Fascism is a loosely associated conglomerate of movements. Real loose of a term. I'd consider it a spectrum like here >>141664 that can lean perhaps as left as Peron for example and stretch as particularly far right as with having Dollfuss having hired Mises. National Socialism is debatably a subset of Fascism that applies racialist, Nordic preconceptions over the statist conceptualisations of Italian Fascism. The philosophical differences here are more Nietzsche derivative than Hegelian. Also, Fascism is certainly capitalist. Capitalism is simply the system of production and distribution.
>>141679
>I believe socialism is supposed to mean government controls the means of production
This is wrong as socialism is a broad umbrella of many ideas, many of which contest bureaucratic socialism, or the state socialism implanted under Lenin's protocol of NEP. The much more proper saying would be that the workers own the means of production. Contrasting to market socialism and democratic socialism which aren't considered (from many socialists perspective.) Considering what the Soviet Union, the implementation of a worker's state was a complete failure. It wasn't actually communism because communism is ideal of the abolition of class identity and hierarchy.
>Hoppe on the Third Reich
I don't recommend it honestly. For the perspective, maybe. But, much of the work of the Mises Institute is disingenuous, at least concerning the Third Reich. I recommend other sources.
http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html
https://archive.org/details/DegrelleHitlersSocialRevolution
whitehonor.com/white-power/national-socialist-economy/
http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FUZFy9Nd9s&t=276s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsAIuAMjzsc&t=11s
Actually a lot of material is scant. I am willing to provide more though.

Note: Hitler takes a pragmatic view on the definition of socialism that actually drastically differs from orthodoxy. He derived this from notably Oswald Spengler's concept of Prussian Socialism. A integral social nationalism that valued community welfare.

>>141647
>>141658
Finally I have time to write this, which has been on my mind for a while. I'm not letting such errors get the last word.

>regulations
Economic policy usually takes some time for its full effect to be felt. Short-term effects or "shocks" (used manipulatively by central banks) are more based on psychological feelings than on material effects. Over time, even after the implemented policy has left the public's span of attention, the effect is of gradual distortion. For example, increased regulation (which, rather than let managers set up an optimal layout, requires things often unnecessary) eats into profits and, combined with other economic measures (such as pensions, healthcare, etc.) makes business unprofitable and drives it overseas toward more competitive locales.

>economic poverty
Firstly, you are not very well-versed in industrial technology. A modern computerized textile cutter can be run by one individual whereas its manual forebears, perhaps less quick and efficient, required ten such laborers. Should each of these ten receive the same wage as the modern worker? That is plainly unreasonable. I do not like child labor either, but how productive is a child? Should one receive the same wage as a more productive adult? Be logical.

Again, you're falling into the fallacious Marxist theory of the labor value of production, where products are worth the amount of labor put into them and workers ought to be paid according to their contribution. Labor is actually just one part of production. The factory owner uses his own capital to establish the factory, thereby taking the risk upon himself. He purchases the real estate, equipment, means of logistics, and advertising and divides the task among different people, simplifying their tasks so that they can apply their efforts toward one goal. He provides a reliable, steady wage for his workers and must do so at a rate that does not drive them toward competition. Also, he does not sit on his accumulated earnings like a "fat cat" but rather invests the bulk of them either in other projects or in a bank, where they are lent out to large and small business owners alike to let them get started.

>Chinese wages
Actually, China is undergoing a shift in production from low-price, low-quality goods to higher-quality products and services, which is fueling a need for education among the younger generations. If China is facing an economic crisis, it stems from huge spending and public debt on the part of the government.

>car industry
So stuff like in-car radios, air conditioning, power windows, and fuel injection do not count? What about the drive towards higher-powered engines in muscle cars in the early 70's? I agree somewhat in regards to electric cars, but at that point they were no better than internal combustion vehicles (which were also pretty bad), if not worse. If they were better an entrepreneur would see the profit in manufacturing the superior values and would pull ahead of Henry Ford. Perhaps if we had as an industry switched to electric vehicles they would be as good as modern gasoline cars in terms of effectiveness, but I digress.

As for banana republics, it does not make sense to give expensive tools to uneducated peasants who don't know how to use them. You cannot grow fruit so easily in the more developed States and so it's necessary to use cheap labor in South America. When you have millions of low-skill laborers who work better en masse than a few well-trained workers, it makes sense to use this approach. Is it exploitative? Only if the government engages in unjust practices and stifles competition.

>history of libertarianism
Oh boy, are you ignorant.
>Spain
The Salamanca School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca) was a theological and philosophical school that developed the teachings of Thomas Aquinas with an emphasis on personal liberty. They have been referred to as "proto-Austrians" by Murray Rothbard
>HRE
Although founded less on philosophy than on practice, the Holy Roman Empire is widely considered the high point of feudal society due to its decentralized structure and freedom based on personal property. Unfortunately, I do not have a specific article which I was thinking of but this serves quite nicely:
https://madmonarchist.blogspot.hk/2010/09/libertarianism-and-medieval-monarchy.html
Also, other libertarian medieval/ancient societies: https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/has-a-libertarian-society-ever-existed/
>Genoa
Again, based more on practice than philosophy, but trade cities, particularly Genoa, were built around economic freedom. https://tomwoods.com/ep-955-genoa-a-forgotten-history-of-liberty-growth-and-entrepreneurship/

>Hayek lost
Hayek's strategy was based on convincing intellectuals and getting them to help reorganize society (sort of how the Frankfurt School did with postmodernism). This was inherently flawed (as most libertarians recognize today) as even at that time academia was being (((subverted))) while it received significant grants from government. Therefore, there was a huge conflict of interest on the part of intellectuals. Why advocate for such grants to be removed and your generous stipends placed in jeopardy when, by advocating for state planning, you can receive funds and prestige, even placed on committees? This is why economists like Krugman, even if they had good ideas in the 90's, now spout fallacious lies on the New York Times.

Thankfully, Rothbard recognized this and switched to a populist tact. The reason he is considered the "greatest libertarian" is not just due to his intellectual prowess but to how he reached millions and turned them against the State. The alt-right's grassroots strategy, which targets the same institutions, owes far more to him than even to visionaries such as G.L. Rockwell and Dr. William Pierce.

>>145918
(continued)

>Command economics
Just to set the record straight, socialism became quite popular in Western Europe due to the efforts of such groups such as the Fabian Society (which had quite a few renowned intellectuals within its ranks). Why do you think that Hayek even bothered to write The Road to Serfdom? In the 1920’s and 1930’s it was the popular opinion that command economics truly were inevitable and the future to save humanity from the “excesses of capitalism.” Austrian economists were the counterculture.

>Pinochet
Firstly, libertarianism is not a democracy-friendly ideology because people inherently want free gibs from government and to impose their will on others. A good deal of libertarians have recognized this and joined the alt-right.

Also, I cannot speak for Chile as I am not greatly familiar with the country, but they seem to have done quite well. (https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/report/how-chile-successfully-transformed-its-economy). Not bad considering it’s a South American country and would naturally lag behind European peers due to social and racial differences. If the board’s resident Chilean could confirm that would be nice.

>retarded philosophy about Humans
Like how since humans are imperfect and inclined toward selfishness we should place imperfect and selfish humans in a monopolistic position above us to dictate their rule?

>Fascist economics
The difference is that tanks are not typically a good in high demand on the market and so governments tend to purchase far larger numbers than are warranted (except for war, which should be avoided in most cases). These tanks are purchased using tax money appropriated from citizens although they did not specifically choose to purchase these tanks; therefore it is a waste of money for them and the lost production is not used elsewhere, such as consumer goods, investment, or charity. If public defense is handled by PMCs they will seek armament that is as efficient as possible (for example, favoring large numbers of ATGMs rather than MBTs, guerrilla warfare rather than Shock & Awe, etc.)

Again, if the State was purely a competitive corporation, relying on their own profits, it would be fine as finances would not be obtained through expropriation from people “for their own good.” If a mistake is made the State would need to pay for it rather than mask over it with more tax money. If it needs to be replaced then it can be replaced with an objectively superior corporation rather than through violent revolution. Your mistake is lauding the fascist State as being corporate when it lacks the good qualities of corporations: mainly, that they bear their own risk, they cannot force others into business, and they can be replaced by competitors.

>European regulations
“Muh middle class” economic arguments fall apart when you apply objective reasoning: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/05/through-an-american-lens-western-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

>Hoover was hands-off
Nope.jpg
Herbert Hoover actually had many of the same policies as Roosevelt, it’s just the latter was better at propaganda. The New Deal prolonged an already painful depression and the eventual recovery (coinciding with the start of WW2) was due to natural market forces. As for the cause of the Depression itself, it was caused by a credit bubble started by the Fed under Calvin Coolidge. https://www.libertarianism.org/media/around-web/top-three-myths-about-great-depression-new-deal

>In times of strife a command economy does better
Mainly because a government can produce goods past the natural demand. If it wants to the State can keep churning out tanks even as its citizens are starving in the streets. This appears to work well because of the limited timeframe of war (and the associated spoils) but if maintained in peacetime the result is misery.

I think we’ve established one thing: you haven’t actually read those “extensive resources” or else you would be better versed in history.