Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
13
@WandererUber The state ultimately has the final say. The free market is an illusion it maintains, but it can just boss people around if it feels like it.
@Griffith it's not an illusion if de facto you have more room to maneuver as a company without state interference. The foundation of white society is agreeing to some chivalrous principle and not breaking it.
Decaying states inevitably DO break the principles, but this only accelerates their demise.
There is a very real practical difference between "well in theory they could pass laws and elect judges and ignore rulings and do whatever they wanted, if such a faction has control of the government, so this might all go away" and "they just demonstrated that they are actively sabotaging a free market company because it didn't give them what they wanted. It all went away." The latter is a strong top signal
Decaying states inevitably DO break the principles, but this only accelerates their demise.
There is a very real practical difference between "well in theory they could pass laws and elect judges and ignore rulings and do whatever they wanted, if such a faction has control of the government, so this might all go away" and "they just demonstrated that they are actively sabotaging a free market company because it didn't give them what they wanted. It all went away." The latter is a strong top signal
@WandererUber There’s nowhere on Earth a government couldn’t crush the free market, and there’s nowhere on Earth where the state has withered away. Force > money.
@Griffith >There’s nowhere on Earth a government couldn’t crush the free market
there are plenty of different places with different levels of state crushing the market and the ones that do it less were always whiter and more successful so idk what you want from me here.
My reply was literally an explanation of the difference between the theoretical possibility and the practical execution.
guy in a quiet, peaceful kingdom without crime, pointing to patrolling knights in shining armor:
"Erm, you guys know that the king might just send these guys to crush baby skulls at any moment, right? We're no different from the orcish war tribes!"
there are plenty of different places with different levels of state crushing the market and the ones that do it less were always whiter and more successful so idk what you want from me here.
My reply was literally an explanation of the difference between the theoretical possibility and the practical execution.
guy in a quiet, peaceful kingdom without crime, pointing to patrolling knights in shining armor:
"Erm, you guys know that the king might just send these guys to crush baby skulls at any moment, right? We're no different from the orcish war tribes!"
@WandererUber Western Europe is known for their welfare states, and the US quietly is one too. Same with Japan, which is a better example of a white country.
@Griffith welfare state is a total goalpost move in this regard that's really not what I was talking about
My train of thought was people in power self-imposing limitations on themselves. That's why I said chivalry. Brown people don't do that. If you do well in such a country, some guy will just come and take it.
My train of thought was people in power self-imposing limitations on themselves. That's why I said chivalry. Brown people don't do that. If you do well in such a country, some guy will just come and take it.
@WandererUber Why would it be a goalpost move? Governments raise taxes to spend on welfare, it’s an imposition on the free market.
@Griffith we went from discussing why strongarming free enterprise into giving into your demands by violating the guardrails you expect them to operate within to "states spend on welfare" and you're asking why this is a goalpost move?
@WandererUber Changing the subject isn’t a goalpost move, it’s just reiterating the same point with another example. I’ve been saying the state is sovereign, not the market, and I don’t understand what the disagreement is.
@Griffith That was never even my point.
My point is that there is a material difference between setting and keeping the bounds that enterprise is allowed to operate within, and breaking your promise. You disputed this and now you had to retreat to the very obvious point that technically they can't stop the state because it is the sovereign.
My point is that there is a material difference between setting and keeping the bounds that enterprise is allowed to operate within, and breaking your promise. You disputed this and now you had to retreat to the very obvious point that technically they can't stop the state because it is the sovereign.
@WandererUber Did the government ever promise to not interfere in the market? They make the rules. The market operates on the condition of their endorsement.
@WandererUber Like what do you mean “technically sovereign.” They’re the sovereign. They can tell you you’re paying 50% taxes tomorrow and you have to fight them, convince them to change their mind, or obey.
@Griffith I meant that it is a meaningless technicality to my argument.
I gave a few examples in this thread why this while being technically correct does nothing to address the actual problem with doing what they are doing.
I gave a few examples in this thread why this while being technically correct does nothing to address the actual problem with doing what they are doing.
Replies
2
@WandererUber You think it’s meaningless because you think what they’re doing is wrong, but that’s not what I’m saying.
@Griffith >you think what they’re doing is wrong
I've made no moral judgement. You tried to shift it in this direction by stating that they are the sovereign, which might imply that the corps have no right to stop them, but I was never talking about rights. The guy in op might be soy-raging a bit, granted. I really don't care about that.
Since the first point I have only argued about the functional practical differences and implications of behaving like this
I've made no moral judgement. You tried to shift it in this direction by stating that they are the sovereign, which might imply that the corps have no right to stop them, but I was never talking about rights. The guy in op might be soy-raging a bit, granted. I really don't care about that.
Since the first point I have only argued about the functional practical differences and implications of behaving like this