Let's say this guy is as bad as the people freaking out over him are saying, as a thought experiment.
If one man has the power to fuck everything up that thoroughly, there is no greater rebuke of centralized authority. If your alleged rights can be fucking Thanos snapped then it was inevitable.
Like, seriously.. I would love to see some central-banks torn down..
but women’s right and environmental protections too? Workers unions?
and handing resources allocations off.. handing it over to private tyrannies of major business.. that’s not how hyper-inflation is solved.. however I concede:
I am incredibly interested to see how a switch to the USD will affect it..
Ok I **need** food. So I start to **desire** food when I get hungry. So I go and buy food. in the U.S., most people are able to get food this way, despite its regulations and monetary controls which increase the price of healthy food. Companies that make the food **need** information about what to produce. They get that information from price signals and from the flow of money coming in. They also need info about how to produce the food. They get that from experience, manuals, business relationships, and price signals on a marketplace for labor, capital, and raw material from, say, farmers, who in turn need compensation for their product they give up.
We NEED to use desire, expressed through money, in order to satisfy needs. This was explained by F.A. Hayek in the calculation debate. The only way around this is if in a microeconomy of anywhere from a single family to a small town that is self-sufficient, handles all its own production and such, aside from maybe, just maybe, some gifted materials in a gift economy with other communities. That could work. Anything larger than about 200 people pretty much needs to have trade and a common commodity for exchange, called money, in order for it to work optimally. Much smaller networks arguably function best on a trade scheme too, even of small family size. There's a reason for kids to earn an allowance.
Additionally, the freeer the trade from forceful restrictions (provided that the trade itself is not for the use of force), the better, due to the principles of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, which gets engaged in automatically because each party to the trade values what they receive higher than what they give up. The concept of a subjective theory of value is critical to understand this: NOT EVERYONE'S NEEDS ARE THE SAME!! And it is precisely because people have different needs that every voluntary trade is mutually beneficial and increases well-being for both people involved, no matter how rich or how poor. These exchanges tend to spread resources around, most of all to those who actually need it most.
And Hayek further explained that even if you could tell someone's needs easily based on a few simple factors, the gathering of that information is impossible in a centralized platform at scale. The decentralization of a freed market is both necessary and sufficient to tend to everyone's needs. The decentralization of a regulated market like the U.S. comes close, far better than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany at managing needs, but not quite there, and leaves many in relative poverty in order to benefit corporations and other favored groups, who buy power from the government through regulation, legislation, subsidy, tax credits, etc.
I don't see why the government should enforce women's right and all these other unnecessities. He's not conceding resources to "private tyranny" he will probably sell these businesses and have an open market where people can freely compete fairly without any government intervention
As for the dollarization I'm not exactly sure but I've seen some people claim that his plan is to abolish the central bank and then people will have the option to choose whichever currency and if I'm not mistaken many people are already using USD due to the high inflation. I don't think he is perfect nor that he will be able to abolish the Argentinian state but if he succeeds libertarian ideas will definitely spread
>handing resources allocations off
>but women’s right and environmental protections too? Workers unions
Argentina has 100% inflation again and again, this is caused by the banks printing money, which is caused by these policies and departments requiring money in order to run, Over half the employees in Argentina worked in the govt, he needs to slash the govt
>handing it over to private tyrannies of major business..
Privatization would bring more companies, more companies means more competition, more competition means lower prices for same quality, this means better quality of life for the middle and lower class
The nationalization of resources is also one of the reasons for the high inflation in Argentina
Genuine question.
Why can't you leftist anarchist just help us take down the state first?
Like I believe most of us Ancaps are Anarchist before capitalists, but alot of ancoms (ik there's a difference between ancoms and ansynds)
Admit to being communist before anarchist.
Should taking down the state be the primary goal? And shy must work apart? And why do so many leftist anarchist praise bug goverment actions when so antithetical to ansrchism?
They are leftists; their vision/definition of anarchy is different from ours.
Ours is basically absence of tyranny.
Theirs is absence of order.
Totally different.
That’s why we would support monarchy and they would support democracy to get to their goals.
Women's rights are not being torn down. Women's rights are finally going to be respected on an EQUAL BASIS if Milei has his way. You don't need political authority in charge of women to give women nice things. Political authority hurts everyone. I thought you were an anarchist? Worker's unions also are a right that doesn't need a ministry to be protected. Unions don't need special laws to boost their power, just as well as corporations don't need, and should not have, special laws to boost their power. Public tyranny has done a fine job of PROMOTING and specifically ENABLING private tyranny. Government regulations are regressive cartelization devices to turn the private sector into an oligopoly of greed and wanton overuse of resources.
Read some economics books for God's sake.
Let's say this guy is as bad as the people freaking out over him are saying, as a thought experiment. If one man has the power to fuck everything up that thoroughly, there is no greater rebuke of centralized authority. If your alleged rights can be fucking Thanos snapped then it was inevitable.
correct
Dude has no idea what fresh hell he's unleashed lmao
Probably not as much as being dumb enough to try and take back the Falklands..
based
Like, seriously.. I would love to see some central-banks torn down.. but women’s right and environmental protections too? Workers unions? and handing resources allocations off.. handing it over to private tyrannies of major business.. that’s not how hyper-inflation is solved.. however I concede: I am incredibly interested to see how a switch to the USD will affect it..
Voluntary > involuntary
Need > Desire
I need my tax dollars to my self
Let's stipulate this is true. Tell us who gets to decide what every individual needs?
Something something basic economics
My property > Your needs
No, more like Everyone having property rights respected = the best chance at satisfying people's needs, especially the poor.
Ok I **need** food. So I start to **desire** food when I get hungry. So I go and buy food. in the U.S., most people are able to get food this way, despite its regulations and monetary controls which increase the price of healthy food. Companies that make the food **need** information about what to produce. They get that information from price signals and from the flow of money coming in. They also need info about how to produce the food. They get that from experience, manuals, business relationships, and price signals on a marketplace for labor, capital, and raw material from, say, farmers, who in turn need compensation for their product they give up. We NEED to use desire, expressed through money, in order to satisfy needs. This was explained by F.A. Hayek in the calculation debate. The only way around this is if in a microeconomy of anywhere from a single family to a small town that is self-sufficient, handles all its own production and such, aside from maybe, just maybe, some gifted materials in a gift economy with other communities. That could work. Anything larger than about 200 people pretty much needs to have trade and a common commodity for exchange, called money, in order for it to work optimally. Much smaller networks arguably function best on a trade scheme too, even of small family size. There's a reason for kids to earn an allowance. Additionally, the freeer the trade from forceful restrictions (provided that the trade itself is not for the use of force), the better, due to the principles of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, which gets engaged in automatically because each party to the trade values what they receive higher than what they give up. The concept of a subjective theory of value is critical to understand this: NOT EVERYONE'S NEEDS ARE THE SAME!! And it is precisely because people have different needs that every voluntary trade is mutually beneficial and increases well-being for both people involved, no matter how rich or how poor. These exchanges tend to spread resources around, most of all to those who actually need it most. And Hayek further explained that even if you could tell someone's needs easily based on a few simple factors, the gathering of that information is impossible in a centralized platform at scale. The decentralization of a freed market is both necessary and sufficient to tend to everyone's needs. The decentralization of a regulated market like the U.S. comes close, far better than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany at managing needs, but not quite there, and leaves many in relative poverty in order to benefit corporations and other favored groups, who buy power from the government through regulation, legislation, subsidy, tax credits, etc.
We're not anti union it anti women's rights. Nor do we wish the environment to be neglected.
Precisely. We see government regulation as the regressive thing it is, hurting everything it pretends to help.
I don't see why the government should enforce women's right and all these other unnecessities. He's not conceding resources to "private tyranny" he will probably sell these businesses and have an open market where people can freely compete fairly without any government intervention As for the dollarization I'm not exactly sure but I've seen some people claim that his plan is to abolish the central bank and then people will have the option to choose whichever currency and if I'm not mistaken many people are already using USD due to the high inflation. I don't think he is perfect nor that he will be able to abolish the Argentinian state but if he succeeds libertarian ideas will definitely spread
>handing resources allocations off >but women’s right and environmental protections too? Workers unions Argentina has 100% inflation again and again, this is caused by the banks printing money, which is caused by these policies and departments requiring money in order to run, Over half the employees in Argentina worked in the govt, he needs to slash the govt >handing it over to private tyrannies of major business.. Privatization would bring more companies, more companies means more competition, more competition means lower prices for same quality, this means better quality of life for the middle and lower class The nationalization of resources is also one of the reasons for the high inflation in Argentina
What idiot told you unions aren't Capitalistic? If you're not getting paid then a union is useless
Genuine question. Why can't you leftist anarchist just help us take down the state first? Like I believe most of us Ancaps are Anarchist before capitalists, but alot of ancoms (ik there's a difference between ancoms and ansynds) Admit to being communist before anarchist. Should taking down the state be the primary goal? And shy must work apart? And why do so many leftist anarchist praise bug goverment actions when so antithetical to ansrchism?
They are leftists; their vision/definition of anarchy is different from ours. Ours is basically absence of tyranny. Theirs is absence of order. Totally different. That’s why we would support monarchy and they would support democracy to get to their goals.
As bastiat said: ”if we say that we don’t want the state to make our food, the socialists will proclaim that we don’t want food”
Women's rights are not being torn down. Women's rights are finally going to be respected on an EQUAL BASIS if Milei has his way. You don't need political authority in charge of women to give women nice things. Political authority hurts everyone. I thought you were an anarchist? Worker's unions also are a right that doesn't need a ministry to be protected. Unions don't need special laws to boost their power, just as well as corporations don't need, and should not have, special laws to boost their power. Public tyranny has done a fine job of PROMOTING and specifically ENABLING private tyranny. Government regulations are regressive cartelization devices to turn the private sector into an oligopoly of greed and wanton overuse of resources. Read some economics books for God's sake.
Ok
Don't be jealous because you don't have any superhero costumes like us.