Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 127

The right can't claim to value free speech unless they care about those on the left being censored, it's overhwelming the left that is silenced and a joke to pretend otherwise. In my country the economic profession got defunded of their research grant if they didn't tow the neoliberal line, and we had a massive depression in the early 90's after the mass privatizations, labour deregulations, and ever since then it's been stagnant real wages (no increase). but now the vast majority of economists here are neoliberals. it's the same in other countries; Larry summers, economist causes bank crisis, gets massively rewarded. Joseph stiglitz critices globalization, gets fired from world bank. Then when you look at journalists like chris hedges, lost his job immediately after criticizing invasion of iraq. Norman finkelstein, lost his job and no tenure for telling the truth about israel, and when we go further back, Wilfred burchett exiled from australia after reporting what he saw in hiroshima. Probably most on the right, and many on the left don't know of these incidents. They are not recorded by many historians at all.

So i mean if the right focus on reality and care'd about censorship of the left, I would respect them a bit more. There is every right to fire someone from their job if they go around making bigoted comments-it's not an attack on free speech rather no one wants to work with someone like that. Demonitization seems fine to me as well, it's not an attack on free speech if it's about their personality rather than their political views.

In contrast to that rand quote, bertrand russell had some interesting things to say about censorship in his 'free thought and official propaganda lectures', in 1922. "Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living." It's quite interesting that even 100 years ago someone saw economic repression as being the main obstacle and not state violence. Especially coming from someone that was jailed for pacficist ideas.

On June 09 2019 01:09 Stroggoz wrote: The right can't claim to value free speech unless they care about those on the left being censored, it's overhwelming the left that is silenced and a joke to pretend otherwise.

I dont know about your country but in social media the right is censored way more, but the left has been also censored, predictably slayed by their own sword

Is Stroggoz a female? Them emotions are strong in that one.

Oops got threads confused, meant NMcNasty.

On June 09 2019 06:46 Obannon112 wrote: Is Stroggoz a female? Them emotions are strong in that one. Oops got threads confused, meant NMcNasty.

Good thing you went back and edited your post, its important to get that right. Work on your troll game hard enough and eventually you'll be at Santafairy's level.

On June 09 2019 06:18 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2019 01:09 Stroggoz wrote: The right can't claim to value free speech unless they care about those on the left being censored, it's overhwelming the left that is silenced and a joke to pretend otherwise. I dont know about your country but in social media the right is censored way more, but the left has been also censored, predictably slayed by their own sword

Can you name a single leftist who has been censored and who was "slayed by their own sword", i.e. who took part in some kind of effort to silence right-wingers?

When you're working with a completely distorted political compass, and you deliberately look out for instances that prove your bias, like Joe Rogan, yes, "the right" is censored way more. Neoliberalism isn't left-wing. Toeing the status quo for maximum profit isn't left-wing. Those corporations don't have values and they don't "pick a side". It just so happens that in neoliberal capitalism, certain kinds of bigotry are not advertiser friendly. It's not that hard to understand that this logic stems from a capitalist ideology, not some moral dimension outside of it. This is the same kind of naiveté as thinking that human beings have a soul. This is the world that you fucking want without even realizing it, cry me a river.



Speaking of Rogan, it's funny how it's one of his major talking points, and he takes it to be self-evident, yet once he is challenged on it by David Pakman--finally someone who challenges him on it!--he can't make a convincing argument. That's the power of echo chambers and a real challenge in good faith is quick to expose this trend of "enlightened centrism" for the intellectually bankrupt thing that it is.

On June 09 2019 16:22 Loco wrote: Can you name a single leftist who has been censored and who was "slayed by their own sword", i.e. who took part in some kind of effort to silence right-wingers?

yes, many:



There also that journalist who campaigned hard againts CountDankula (the nazi pug guy), and then a conservative trans reported an insult he threw at her and he had even police issues regarding that.

Linda Sarsour kinda got that too when he got cancelled from womens march etc.


TBH its such a strange thing to ask, nowadays almost all leftists support censorship like yourself and you just said that many leftists also get banned in social media, so they get slayed by their own sword.

On June 09 2019 01:09 Stroggoz wrote: The right can't claim to value free speech unless they care about those on the left being censored, it's overhwelming the left that is silenced and a joke to pretend otherwise

I've seen Sargon and CountDankula protest when left wingers got censored, and I've never seen any of them ever ask to get somebody censored/banned/demonetized, ever.

I dont know in your coutnry but in social media bans far more right wingers than left wingers, its not even close, or please tell me prominent leftits accounts of the size of alex jones, milo or sargon who have been banned from twitter

When you're working with a completely distorted political compass, and you deliberately look out for instances that prove your bias, like Joe Rogan, yes, "the right" is censored way more. Neoliberalism isn't left-wing. Toeing the status quo for maximum profit isn't left-wing. Those corporations don't have values and they don't "pick a side". It just so happens that in neoliberal capitalism, certain kinds of bigotry are not advertiser friendly. It's not that hard to understand that this logic stems from a capitalist ideology, not some moral dimension outside of it. This is the same kind of naiveté as thinking that human beings have a soul. This is the world that you fucking want without even realizing it, cry me a river.

you talk about distorted political compasses when you call me fascist enabler lol.

Of course these companies are toeing the status quo to maximize profits, which is the whole point, they are shutting down dissidents, right and left and the left applauds them for it, yourself included.


BTW could you answer the question about islamists and stop dodging Loco that would be nice.

We had a case in Finland where very lefty woman journalist called a guy who indentifies as a nazi (curiously the guy is half moroccan) on her facebook page "a nazi clown" and she got convicted of slander. It was beautiful.

On June 10 2019 00:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 09 2019 16:22 Loco wrote: Can you name a single leftist who has been censored and who was "slayed by their own sword", i.e. who took part in some kind of effort to silence right-wingers? yes, many: + Show Spoiler + There also that journalist who campaigned hard againts CountDankula (the nazi pug guy), and then a conservative trans reported an insult he threw at her and he had even police issues regarding that. Linda Sarsour kinda got that too when he got cancelled from womens march etc. TBH its such a strange thing to ask, nowadays almost all leftists support censorship like yourself and you just said that many leftists also get banned in social media, so they get slayed by their own sword.

That Tweet says absolutely nothing. Even after searching for what Stitcher is or how Paul Joseph Watson is related to it, I couldn't find anything. Who is this Mike guy and what did he do and how was he censored back? And who is this journalist you're referring to?

I know you can find a lot of liberals calling for restrictions on speech. That's not the subject. You said leftists (anti-capitalists), not liberals. So who are you aware of that is (1) anti-capitalist (2) actively attempting to silence right-wingers on social media and (3) has been censored by big social media companies ("slaint by their own sword'')? The subject was social media censorship, wasn't it? The type of censorship you think I believe in has nothing to do with that, it has to do with people refusing to debate or even hear fascist and racist ideas in public places. They are opposites, one is top down power, one is bottom up.

What is the "islamist question"? I'm guessing you're referring to something from previous pages that I have not read.

you talk about distorted political compasses when you call me fascist enabler lol.

I mean, you were literally radicalized by a neo-fascist after all... . You know, someone who has literally said “I don’t view humanity as a single species...”. And that's not some dark past of yours, something to look back on with shame, it's something relevant right now, because you still have the same views as back then.

And here you are currently spending time out of your day defending people from a racist/crypto-fascist party in the UK. You could be reading George Orwell or doing whatever the fuck else but this is what you're doing with your time. What a wild idea to think you might be a fascist enabler!

I predict that you're going to tell me that social issues and economics are two completely disjointed subjects and that you can share Molyneux's economics without supporting him on social issues (because that's the typical libertarian position which you've supported in the past). Now this opinion--the statement that economics and political/social issues are separate-- is a claim that is open to empirical investigation. So if you make it again, I would ask that you provide empirical support for it, and I will offer empirical support against it. (The idea that a fascist's economics wouldn't somehow serve fascism is, to my mind, hilariously stupid.)

Of course these companies are toeing the status quo to maximize profits, which is the whole point, they are shutting down dissidents, right and left and the left applauds them for it, yourself included.

I have just said the opposite in my previous post. Crowder is getting more attention, more money and more influence as a result of this. How the fuck am I applauding YouTube? All I'm doing is pointing at the irony of supporting neoliberal capitalism or ultraliberal capitalism and whining about its logically inevitable social consequences. What do you want me to say? I'm sorry that you want square-circles to exist so badly? There are no square-circles, just like there is no perfect freedom. You pick your poison (your constraints), and you picked poorly, because multinational corporations are the least accountable entities in the world, and no, it's not "just because of the government".

This is not an issue of individual moral failings, it's a structural issue. There are structural laws in the universe, and wanting there to be none, or wanting them to be different doesn't change them, and it doesn't help. Well, you could argue that it helps the person because their ignorance protects them from the poison of knowledge. The belief in the "law of attraction" or free market fundamentalism works in this way, but it helps no one else other than yourself; it has no social positives or evolutionary potential.

What has evolutionary potential is trying to understand them and using that understanding to change the structures themselves so that it advantages the many rather than the few. It doesn't matter how much you want to go to the moon if you don't know the law of universal gravitation, it's just not going to happen. (And it also doesn't matter if you do understand it if you don't have the socio-economic means to get a spacecraft to get there.) The same thing is true with absolute freedom of speech in a social world where there are power inequities, the same thing is true of corporations always prioritizing profit over any other value system under capitalism. It's written in the goddamn system, you blind fool. Stop scapegoating. Individual human beings and their "moral failings" are not the problem, they are subject to the same laws that they have no control over -- until they understand them and have the means to use them differently).

On June 10 2019 18:38 Loco wrote: That Tweet says absolutely nothing. Even after searching for what Stitcher is or how Paul Joseph Watson is related to it, I couldn't find anything. Who is this Mike guy and what did he do and how was he censored back? And who is this journalist you're referring to? I know you can find a lot of liberals calling for restrictions on speech. That's not the subject. You said leftists (anti-capitalists), not liberals. So who are you aware of that is (1) anti-capitalist (2) actively attempting to silence right-wingers on social media and (3) has been censored by big social media companies ("slaint by their own sword'')? The subject was social media censorship, wasn't it? The type of censorship you think I believe in has nothing to do with that, it has to do with people refusing to debate or even hear fascist and racist ideas in public places. They are opposites, one is top down power, one is bottom up.

I'm using the term leftists broadly, including people like AOC, Sarsour etc, not just communists, the most extreme ends of the political espectrum rarely get a big following in social media so its hard to see what hard communist got axed by twitter, that being said these blue checkmarks who lean left constantly cry for censorship for the same raesons you do.

You say you don't support it personally because you want it from bottom up, but once you allow censorship of ideas as a moral thing then its not under your control what will be censored, how or by whom, thats the whole fucking premise of the protection of freedom of speech ffs.

What is the "islamist question"? I'm guessing you're referring to something from previous pages that I have not read.

I asked you that since you support violence in order to supress what you consider fascists ideology from white people, do you also condone to use preemptive violence to stop fascist ideology from muslims, for example if an Imam in Canada preaches about the caliphate and how it should rule over the world then we should also violently attack him and the atendees to stop his islamist fascism from spreading?

I mean, you were literally radicalized by a neo-fascist after all... . You know, someone who has literally said “I don’t view humanity as a single species...”. And that's not some dark past of yours, something to look back on with shame, it's something relevant right now, because you still have the same views as back then. And here you are currently spending time out of your day defending people from a racist/crypto-fascist party in the UK. You could be reading George Orwell or doing whatever the fuck else but this is what you're doing with your time. What a wild idea to think you might be a fascist enabler!

oh not only I'm a fascist enabler, I was radicalized by a nazi years ago too lol, yeah your political compass is totally right.

I'm not defending a crypto fascist party, I'm defending freedom of speech from autoritarians like yourself, that is worth my time.

(The idea that a fascist's economics wouldn't somehow serve fascism is, to my mind, hilariously stupid.)

Fascism economics is socialistic, a vice-grip control by the state with strong emphasis on the collective over the individual, (with obvious different social rules than the soviets).

Nothing could be further from the free market than state-controlled collectivism.

In before: but... but... but.. Nazis were not socialists!

Of course these companies are toeing the status quo to maximize profits, which is the whole point, they are shutting down dissidents, right and left and the left applauds them for it, yourself included.

I have just said the opposite in my previous post. Crowder is getting more attention, more money and more influence as a result of this. How the fuck am I applauding YouTube? All I'm doing is pointing at the irony of supporting neoliberal capitalism or ultraliberal capitalism and whining about its logically inevitable social consequences. What do you want me to say? I'm sorry that you want square-circles to exist so badly? There are no square-circles, just like there is no perfect freedom. You pick your poison (your constraints), and you picked poorly, because multinational corporations are the least accountable entities in the world, and no, it's not "just because of the government".[/quote]

Except that sadly we do have a state with all its burdens but little of its benefits, they are a supposed safeguard for this, yet they aren't, and that is the complain, as I explained before, If firemen didn't put out fires I would complain too.

This is not an issue of individual moral failings, it's a structural issue. There are structural laws in the universe, and wanting there to be none, or wanting them to be different doesn't change them, and it doesn't help. Well, you could argue that it helps the person because their ignorance protects them from the poison of knowledge. The belief in the "law of attraction" or free market fundamentalism works in this way, but it helps no one else other than yourself; it has no social positives or evolutionary potential.

It appears to me that your misunderstanding of economics make you believe its mystic, you talk about the "invisible hand" as some woo-woo instead of quite simple concepts.

You sound like some anti-vaxxer mom who is concerned about the "toxins" in vaccines and choses to treat with homeopathy instead, only because you don't know about it doesn't mean its woo-woo and your alternative is ridiculously obtuse.

Stop scapegoating. Individual human beings and their "moral failings" are not the problem, they are subject to the same laws that they have no control over -- until they understand them and have the means to use them differently).

Capitalism isn't what creates these moral failings, we have lived from millenia under dozens of economical and societal systems and these moral failings have always been the same.

On June 11 2019 00:20 Baalim wrote: I'm using the term leftists broadly, including people like AOC, Sarsour etc, not just communists, the most extreme ends of the political espectrum rarely get a big following in social media so its hard to see what hard communist got axed by twitter, that being said these blue checkmarks who lean left constantly cry for censorship for the same raesons you do.

So should we "broad leftists" start calling everyone who leans right or who is a Neo-Nazi "rightists" and leave it at that? Leftism signifies the far end of the spectrum, it has almost nothing in common with liberalism; you're abusing language without even realizing it. If you can't even figure out the basics of who I consider allies and who I don't consider allies, you should simply stop talking to me about politics or expecting a response from me. There's only so many times that I can repeat that I'm not allied with Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists or the average "blue checkmarked" Twitter liberal without losing my patience.

You say you don't support it personally because you want it from bottom up, but once you allow censorship of ideas as a moral thing then its not under your control what will be censored, how or by whom, thats the whole fucking premise of the protection of freedom of speech ffs.

I don't advocate for censoring ideas on a "moral basis". You can make a parallel with climate change. If we lived under the USSR and it was impossible to talk about the negative impacts of our government policies on the climate without risking our lives, and I denounced it, I wouldn't be making a moral argument based on my own individual arbitrary moral system. I would be making an argument that we have to oppose this system because it is an existential threat to everyone who cannot shield themselves from its ravaging effects. What the paradox of tolerance indicates is that fascism is an existential threat. It's not an existential threat to have someone think fascist thoughts. It's an existential threat once people organize around the ideas and try to recruit people to coalesce power.

My wants have nothing to do with it, because my wants are checked by the larger communities within society. That's what it means to advocate for direct democracy, it means you want to share power equally and you don't get to shape things from your individual wants alone. I understand why you cannot help yourself from making this mistake about me since you personally don't really believe in democracy, or even society, only individuals. Disconnected individual consumers and their disconnected morality is the only framework of analysis you know and you can't help but project it onto others.

I asked you that since you support violence in order to supress what you consider fascists ideology from white people, do you also condone to use preemptive violence to stop fascist ideology from muslims, for example if an Imam in Canada preaches about the caliphate and how it should rule over the world then we should also violently attack him and the atendees to stop his islamist fascism from spreading?

As soon as he organizes around those ideas, he should expect resistance, and that resistance can take the form of violence. When you threaten people's existence, violence naturally comes sooner or later. It's not about what I want or my morality, self-preservation and aggressiveness when facing a threat you can't run away from is basic behavioral biology.

I had already answered you that I didn't see a difference between islamist fascism and white supremacy, that the difference was the degree of threat. Now will you address the post I made you said you would address if I answered you? It's in the jordan peterson thread but you can move your answer here for convenience.

Fascism economics is socialistic, a vice-grip control by the state with strong emphasis on the collective over the individual, (with obvious different social rules than the soviets). Nothing could be further from the free market than state-controlled collectivism. In before: but... but... but.. Nazis were not socialists!

You're not providing the empirical evidence I asked for as to how economics and the social realm are disconnected, merely repeating the same right-wing conspiracy theory I debunked previously.

Except that sadly we do have a state with all its burdens but little of its benefits, they are a supposed safeguard for this, yet they aren't, and that is the complain, as I explained before, If firemen didn't put out fires I would complain too.

Wait, you're saying the state should come in and tell private entities how to run their business and you are disappointed that they are failing to do so adequately? How is that not an obvious contradiction to your principles?

It appears to me that your misunderstanding of economics make you believe its mystic, you talk about the "invisible hand" as some woo-woo instead of quite simple concepts.

It's not "mystical", but it is mythical. Why don't you debunk the Steve Keen clip I posted earlier? I'm not an economist, but he is. The concept of the invisible hand only makes sense in the context of the assumptions that were made by economists at the time (who were not scientists mind you) relating to human nature and our supposed history of barter. The whole story that gave rise to the belief in the invisible hand is a myth as I said, so why don't we begin there? You didn't respond previously. Care to challenge me on that if you know so much about it? We can follow up with the flawed game theory aspect of the concept as you understand it after. I know quite a bit about this, unfortunately for you.

Also, your understanding of the invisible hand is not at all the same as Adam Smith's was. That's pretty important to point out. Stroggoz can go into details about this better than I can.

You sound like some anti-vaxxer mom who is concerned about the "toxins" in vaccines and choses to treat with homeopathy instead, only because you don't know about it doesn't mean its woo-woo and your alternative is ridiculously obtuse.

That's cute to hear coming from someone whose economic beliefs come straight out of a school of economics that has explicitly stated that they do not believe in the methods of modern science and instead sought to "create their own science", lol. The Austrian economist's "praxeology" is the homeopathy of economics.

Capitalism isn't what creates these moral failings, we have lived from millenia under dozens of economical and societal systems and these moral failings have always been the same.

You're saying that every society has lead to the same kind of socio-economic inequalities and unfreedoms?

It's not a moral failing when a lion eats a gazelle. It's also not a moral failing when people do what is expected of them under capitalism in order to survive. If someone at Google/YouTube doesn't toe the line to maximize profits, they get fired and replaced. That's a structural problem, not a moral one. Blaming individuals within a corporation doesn't do anything -- it doesn't account for the structures that encompasses them and determines their decision-making. The world we live in is a world of systems and structures, not essences and souls. Astructuralism (the ignorance of structuralism) leads you to play this blame and morality game instead of paying attention to what is actually real and meaningful.

Who the fuck is Pete buddigbek or whatever
And how come he's gut such good odds ?

Holy shit btw
Some youtube comments
And I quote: "Capitalism is institutionalized greed and all its proponents are viable candidates for public immolation"

Like are people actually retarded in the US? I've just been watching trials with Milada Horakova (look it up) and how grateful I am for people like her who gave her life and had to live through that shit so morons like that are not in power (and they were over here in former czechoslovakia. Imagine AOC as public head of justice, swayed and instructed by scheming background party leaders)

It's pretty scary what's happening, hope this gets snuffed out and people keep some sort of reason

Capitalism is institutionalized greed and all its proponents are viable candidates for public immolation.

So the first part is very true and the second part seems like obvious hyperbole to me.

There is a lot of structural induced sickness going around as well as imminent doom. We either do something about it or a lot of people suffer and continue to suffer.

This is great by the way:



So is this:



If I had a flag it would be this:



Reposting from a Loco post because "it" does exist:

Building Democracy Without The State (In Rojava)

On June 11 2019 21:27 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Who the fuck is Pete buddigbek or whatever And how come he's gut such good odds ?

Mayor of South Bend, Indiana which is not a big city so he was relatively unknown coming into the race. I think the main appeal is that he seems to be a genuine natural speaker (guy you can have a beer with type) with positions inbetween Warren/Bernie who may seem rambly at times while Harris/Biden/Booker have an annoyingly fake left-shift much like Hillary did. He's gay but is also a veteran which would balance out in a fun way if that's something you would care about.

On June 11 2019 18:00 Loco wrote: So should we "broad leftists" start calling everyone who leans right or who is a Neo-Nazi "rightists" and leave it at that? Leftism signifies the far end of the spectrum, it has almost nothing in common with liberalism; you're abusing language without even realizing it. If you can't even figure out the basics of who I consider allies and who I don't consider allies, you should simply stop talking to me about politics or expecting a response from me. There's only so many times that I can repeat that I'm not allied with Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists or the average "blue checkmarked" Twitter liberal without losing my patience.

You call the free market neoliberalism, refer to me as neoliberal, fascist etc, so fuck you, I will call you whatever I want and I will align you with communists until you stop doing the same with me, I've told you this before.

I don't advocate for censoring ideas on a "moral basis". You can make a parallel with climate change. If we lived under the USSR and it was impossible to talk about the negative impacts of our government policies on the climate without risking our lives, and I denounced it, I wouldn't be making a moral argument based on my own individual arbitrary moral system. I would be making an argument that we have to oppose this system because it is an existential threat to everyone who cannot shield themselves from its ravaging effects. What the paradox of tolerance indicates is that fascism is an existential threat. It's not an existential threat to have someone think fascist thoughts. It's an existential threat once people organize around the ideas and try to recruit people to coalesce power.[/quote} And to others communist is an existencial threat, white nationalists think immigrants are an existencial threat (haven't you talked about their big replacement thing?)... It is a moral judgement and anything can be considered an existencial threat if you look through a particular lens. Show nested quote + My wants have nothing to do with it, because my wants are checked by the larger communities within society. That's what it means to advocate for direct democracy, it means you want to share power equally and you don't get to shape things from your individual wants alone. I understand why you cannot help yourself from making this mistake about me since you personally don't really believe in democracy, or even society, only individuals. Disconnected individual consumers and their disconnected morality is the only framework of analysis you know and you can't help but project it onto others. Oh yeah they are not your needs or ideas, they are the ones of the larger communities you just carry their voice lol, lol egomaniac madman   As soon as he organizes around those ideas, he should expect resistance, and that resistance can take the form of violence. When you threaten people's existence, violence naturally comes sooner or later. It's not about what I want or my morality, self-preservation and aggressiveness when facing a threat you can't run away from is basic behavioral biology. You've expressed how happy you feel about Spencer being punched, so would you also be happy if Islamists started being punched in Canada?   You're not providing the empirical evidence I asked for as to how economics and the social realm are disconnected, merely repeating the same right-wing conspiracy theory I debunked previously. What a stupid way to argue, I've never made such claim economy is the trading system of a society, of course they are connected, now jumping from there to "you can't be a capitalist and care about poor people" is such an intellectual dishonest jump, not that it surprises me you are trying to do that. Lol that link doesn't debunk shit, it states the obvious that nazi socialism was different from the soviet one, their social interest was on race not class, but the state had a tight control of the economy and the interest of the group, in this case nation were always above the individual. That is clearly an economic sytem almost opposite to the free market, and its just a particularly ugly form of socialism.   Wait, you're saying the state should come in and tell private entities how to run their business and you are disappointed that they are failing to do so adequately? How is that not an obvious contradiction to your principles? No thats not the course of action I would like to see, I am pointing out the failure of the state to carry on one of its most basic activities, so we are currently living with the perils of anarcho capitalism but with none of the benefits because the state does not work. What I would want is the free market to topple Youtube, with competitors, like GAB, but this platform was quickly banned by payment processors that are not free-market entities, as I suppose you know, no industry in this planet is more closely tied to the state than financial institutions, so the government regulation/control of financial institutions is actually holding this monopolies, as I've said many times, the state is responsible for the overwhelming majority of monopolies in the world   It's not "mystical", but it is mythical. Why don't you debunk the Steve Keen clip I posted earlier? I'm not an economist, but he is. The concept of the invisible hand only makes sense in the context of the assumptions that were made by economists at the time (who were not scientists mind you) relating to human nature and our supposed history of barter. The whole story that gave rise to the belief in the invisible hand is a myth as I said, so why don't we begin there? You didn't respond previously. Care to challenge me on that if you know so much about it? We can follow up with the flawed game theory aspect of the concept as you understand it after. I know quite a bit about this, unfortunately for you. actually that is what I would like to discuss the most, but I'd like some answer about muslims first and clarify a few points first to know there is a remote chance of it being a fruitful discussion, but make no mistake, this is the topic I want to get to. You sound like some anti-vaxxer mom who is concerned about the "toxins" in vaccines and choses to treat with homeopathy instead, only because you don't know about it doesn't mean its woo-woo and your alternative is ridiculously obtuse.

That's cute to hear coming from someone whose economic beliefs come straight out of a school of economics that has explicitly stated that they do not believe in the methods of modern science and instead sought to "create their own science", lol. The Austrian economist's "praxeology" is the homeopathy of economics.

You're saying that every society has lead to the same kind of socio-economic inequalities and unfreedoms? It's not a moral failing when a lion eats a gazelle. It's also not a moral failing when people do what is expected of them under capitalism in order to survive. If someone at Google/YouTube doesn't toe the line to maximize profits, they get fired and replaced. That's a structural problem, not a moral one. Blaming individuals within a corporation doesn't do anything -- it doesn't account for the structures that encompasses them and determines their decision-making. The world we live in is a world of systems and structures, not essences and souls. Astructuralism (the ignorance of structuralism) leads you to play this blame and morality game instead of paying attention to what is actually real and meaningful.

We are actually almost on the same page about this.

What I mean is regardless of the system our flaws have corrupted them, for example Monarchy was bad broadly because we aren't good at controlling power and we abuse it, and you are arguing that is a structural problem, if we know we suck at power, then dont build a system with an omnipotent ruler and I agree.

But this is exacly why the soviets among other collectivist attempts have failed, for some reason you are concieved this structure is the best and I disagree I think its too exploitable and it will be far worse than capitalism, but I understand the urge, why FFA when we can COOP... but we can't, not yet, I believe we are making strides towards it, hell even scandinavian and japanese societies are pretty close, but most of the world isn't and we have to first make sure to live in a true post-scarcity society, I know you believe the zeitgeist guy and think we currently do, but I think aren't remotely close.