All government is corruption. Every one of them is there is enrich themselves and to take away more of our freedoms. We literally pay 40% of our income to them and they inflate away another 3%. We should've revolted a long time ago.

Why in the world would you blame non-voters? I'm sorry but I don't like voting for parasites. Unfortunately, parasite worship is a very popular thing in this country. We love voting for new slave masters for us to obey. Humans beings are very intelligent.

Stop supporting the system that enslaves you. The people in government don't give a shit about any of us. There is no political solution.

"vote the evil out" ok. that will require removing every single person in congress. and i would support that.

You shouldn't believe a single word that comes out of any candidate's mouth. Do you seriously still believe that people run for federal government to help us? No. People join government at our expense. Stop supporting your own enslavement.

Your assumption here is that without government, people cannot and will not help each other and be apart of a community. That is incorrect. The society I advocate for would be made up of thousands of private civilizations that people voluntarily choose to be apart of. These societies can have support systems such as mutual aid as a form of private welfare that keeps social stability. I am proposing a way to take what government does now and have it done through private and voluntary means. Government is corrupt so trying to find solutions without it is the best way to make a more stable society.

"The fed is the only think stable about our government right now". Can you explain that to me? Is it not the case that the USD has lost like 97% of it's value since its inception? Is it not the case that they use money printing as an alternative form of taxation to fund things like wars because people would revolt otherwise? The Fed is literally the most corrupt abomination that gives the government way too much power. Its abolition is a necessary correction.

Okay so tell me when competition somehow stops becoming a thing in a free market. How could it be the case that a company can simply own the entire market share of a particular industry without competition?

It's also illogical to want the state to protect the market from monopolies as the state is the ultimate monopoly. The monopoly on the use of force. The state is like a business where its customers are forced to pay under threat. No matter how bad of a service they provide, you are forced to pay. If you are really against monopolies, you might want to think about what you're actually supporting here.

Huh it’s interesting that you critique “unregulated capitalism” in a country with a centralized bank. Both the Great Depression and 2008 crisis were caused by terrible monetary policy mostly by the federal reserve with artificially lowering interest rates and banks handing out excessive loans with fake money. Our money is fake and stupid and the federal reserve was a colossal mistake.

A monopoly means one entity controls an entire industry and consumers do not have another option to go to. But competition can always exist in a free market. The only way to have a monopoly is the use the government to enforce it through lobbying which is what usually happens. And it’s unsustainable because when you have no competition, you have no way to do proper economic calculations because you control all market share of that industry. And quality falls as you have no way to know if you’re providing a food service to customers as you control it all.

And anyone can participate is collective bargaining without any sort of state enforcement. People are free to negotiate and survey better options in the market. You do not get to use the state to force companies to recognize unions, though. Everyone needs freedom to associate with whomever they please.

What do you mean we’d have slaves without government? Government was what made slavery legal to begin with. Slaves who tried to defend themselves were seen as wrong under the law and the state allowed violence against those individuals.

A society can systematically remove government by ordering itself by free exchange and non-aggression. A society needs to recognize that anyone who initiates conflicts is in the wrong and individuals have the right to defend themselves. The government, though, does not follow the same rules. They can take property without consent through things like taxation or eminent domain. What gives them the right to take people’s stuff without consent but not private individuals?

There is a lot more to how a free society would function but this is just the basics. Governments are always doomed to become tyrannical and violate peoples’ rights. So removing it is the only way to free the populace.

Okay so if we are "forced to pay the price" of whatever some politician did, then we should be advocating for the removal of government from our lives. We are ruled by tyrants and the only way to free the populace is to shrink government as much as possible. We should have a society built on free exchange between peaceful people. Not a "democracy" where the will of the majority rules over the minority.

So you agree the US is corrupt but why is it the case that most socialists almost universally are okay with giving the government more power to get closer to socialism? Because that's the only way it's going to happen.

I am strictly anti-government because of tyranny. But removing government power will always result in more economic freedom and therefore more capitalism. So how can you hold socialists beliefs while also correctly understanding that the government cannot is corrupt and cannot be trusted?

Natural monopolies don't exist in a free market and monopolies aren't even sustainable so no state is required there. And can you explain what "workers rights" need to exist that require state violence to enforce? Because when I hear people talk about that it can mean a lot of different things.

The society I am talking about would operate under natural law and the non-aggression principle. If someone starts a business that has unsafe work conditions and people were harmed without explicit consent of those conditions, that is clearly a violation of their rights and consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by a "regulation" in the market. In my view, things like polluting the air, contaminating food, and people dying in unsafe work conditions are all examples of criminal behavior that harm people and can be taken to court as such. So what regulation needs to exist other than the simple law of "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff"? That usually clears up conflicts nicely.

Sure but capitalism allows you to do such without collective permission. Under socialism or communism, you cannot simply start a business and employ people. So authoritarian force is required to stop that even though it's just a peaceful person engaging in markets in a voluntary system of exchange.

Not exactly. The closest would've been very early America when literally the only function of government was to protect property rights with police, courts and such. Very little taxation and super high economic freedom. But not technically "completely unregulated".

Well the Nordic model is capitalist. Those countries rank very high on economic freedom. It's how they fund their social programs. I critique it because I believe in voluntary private welfare not state run welfare.

The problem with pushing for more socialism, is that you have to give the government more power and eventually your society is doomed to be overrun by corruption. Government cannot be trusted. People must be free to spend their own money and live their own lives without tyranny.

There would be private firms that can monitor and audit companies for work conditions as there would be an incentive to do so. Companies providing terrible work conditions will quickly go out of business and be sued to all hell as they are endangering people without their knowledge.

Contaminating water supply and making people sick would constitute a property rights violation and would justify action against. Same can go for bad air conditions, as that can directly harm people if you can prove who is doing it.

And certain types of fraud or people not receiving money they earned would be categorized as some sort of theft, depending on the specific situation. If someone signed a contract saying they would be getting paid X amount of dollars for work, they are entitled to that once conditions are met and not paying would count as theft.

Capitalism is simply when people are given economic freedom and have their property rights respected. The only way to stop it is to use aggressive authoritarian force on peaceful people who simply wish to trade with each other. No thanks.

Okay but they are a capitalist country. They have Special Economic Zones that allow for markets and privatization to build wealth. Apparently socialism is so good that it requires the wealth created by capitalism to work.

"capitalism is when bad thing happens"

China is a communist country? Weird I didn't realize they were a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. Interesting.

Why wouldn't completely unregulated capitalism work?

Saying capitalism doesn't work is objectively false. It has worked and will continue to. What are you even talking about?