Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
15
@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.
@Griffith >promise to not interfere in the market?
bit broad, don't you think? You shouldn't avoid the specifics. The idea of laws having applicability boundaries is that people under the entity that makes them can rely on those boundaries. If you use any law for any purpose you want, that de facto signals that you are willing to break the guardrails you set yourself.
Even putting aside the fact I explained before, which is that states that have less direct interventions in the markets do better economically (which most of them want), this also creates uncertainty and signals unreliability.
bit broad, don't you think? You shouldn't avoid the specifics. The idea of laws having applicability boundaries is that people under the entity that makes them can rely on those boundaries. If you use any law for any purpose you want, that de facto signals that you are willing to break the guardrails you set yourself.
Even putting aside the fact I explained before, which is that states that have less direct interventions in the markets do better economically (which most of them want), this also creates uncertainty and signals unreliability.
@WandererUber France has a less free market than almost anywhere on the globe and they’re the closest to inventing fusion power. The Western world has gigantic states that are extremely powerful.
The greater point is that you’re not counteracting my argument, you’re just saying it’s wrong when the sovereign does certain things, which is a different argument entirely.
The greater point is that you’re not counteracting my argument, you’re just saying it’s wrong when the sovereign does certain things, which is a different argument entirely.
@Griffith >you’re not counteracting my argument
I don't have to. You were trying to dispute the point made in op.
All you're doing is posting barely related broad-strokes (and now blatantly incorrect) assessments about state power at this point.
France has no fusion project. Europe as a whole has one. I will not dive into the minutiae of fusion power just to get even further away from the actual argument that was made.
I don't have to. You were trying to dispute the point made in op.
All you're doing is posting barely related broad-strokes (and now blatantly incorrect) assessments about state power at this point.
France has no fusion project. Europe as a whole has one. I will not dive into the minutiae of fusion power just to get even further away from the actual argument that was made.
@WandererUber Excuse me Wanderer but this is the post you’ve been replying to all day. What is the problem with this post.
Replies
1
@Griffith I replied to that with specific explanation why that isn't the be-all-end-all, especially since that was in reply to someone being way more specific than that.
Like I said, this is so broad that it's meaningless.
A father can also kick the shit out of five year old John Darksoul, but that doesn't mean he is equivalent to a father who actually does it.
Like I said, this is so broad that it's meaningless.
A father can also kick the shit out of five year old John Darksoul, but that doesn't mean he is equivalent to a father who actually does it.